25 ms·
What a level headed response by the transport minister. I love that he acknowledges that geofencing rules will easily be circumvented. That said, I still think
by HorizonXP 11y ago
What a level headed response by the transport minister. I love that he acknowledges that geofencing rules will easily be circumvented.
That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.
- Zigurd 11y agoGeofencing has a downside, too. While you might think it enhances aviation safety, it may not do so at all. Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that, when you read about a "possible drone strike" always bet against it. Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.
- ddispaltro 11y agoYeah mission creep would be the best way to describe what I'd be afraid of with geofencing.
- blakeyrat 11y agoI'm not sure I agree with geofencing, but it's also true that drone operators appear to be, by and large, acting like complete jerks and someone needs to get the message across somehow.
- EdHominem 11y agoA jerk owns a drone? Better pick on the non-jerks! A bad guy used encryption? ...
- icebraining 11y agoThe message shows be sent by levying fines, mandating community work and putting restrictions from operating drones for X years for anyone caught being a jerk.
- cpncrunch 11y ago>Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that It depends where you're talking about. Close to airports is the major issue. 2nm from the runway planes will be at 600ft, which is well within the range of drones. >Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there. We're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves.
- nitrogen 11y agoWe're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves. Much as I like the idea of keeping drones away from planes, just look at how governments have abused other "voluntary" restriction systems. For example, ISPs install filters for ostensibly noble causes, then governments commandeer them for more questionable uses.
- cpncrunch 11y agoSounds like a slippery slope argument. Which governments of civilized, democratic countries have commandeered ISP's filters for questionable uses? If you're talking about the UK porn filter, it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it. Even if it were a law, I don't see the issue that you are arguing. You're essentially saying "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument. Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want?
- EdHominem 11y ago> Sounds like a slippery slope argument. [...] it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it. Yeah, that's the point. When the technology has been demonstrated to work (even if badly) in some areas it's suddenly mandated in other areas. Now we have a technology that was so-so at blocking unwanted porn being used for everything from catching pedophiles to checking for intel leaks. A false-positive in porn blocking was annoying, in pedo-detection it can ruin lives. Worse, when functioning properly it can prop up repressive regimes. > Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want? Is that the only choice? Egregious laws that harm innocents and don't actually solve the issue versus no law at all? Well in that case, it's clear. No law is better than being stuck with bad law that doesn't actually help... But thankfully those aren't the only options. We can push back against bad laws (useless, abusive, etc) and accept the good ones. > "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument. No, we don't want useless technological measures mandated that claim to block drones from airports, but fail to actually help in a real security context. Because those useless security rules have only one real purpose - banning civilians from inconvenient things. Laws, like lines of code, have a distinct cost and we should only add the ones that will actually help.
- gus_massa 11y agoIt doesn't look so easy. First you must put a GPS in each device, I think the cheaper drones don't have one. Also, the forbidden areas may vary, so they have to provide a way to update it.
- cpncrunch 11y ago>First you must put a GPS in each device A gps costs under $1 today: http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/gps-chip-price.html http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/gps-chip-price.html >Also, the forbidden areas may vary It's mostly airports that we need to worry about, and they don't tend to change much. Sure, TMA boundaries might vary occasionally, but that's not really much of a worry, because most drones won't be up at 1000+ ft.
- amelius 11y agoWhat about its weight?
- EdHominem 11y agoMore importantly, what failure modes does it have? Do you have to have GPS lock to takeoff? What if you lose it while flying? At DEFCON someone demonstrated dropping drones from the sky by spoofing GPS coordinates to inside an airport. Funny, but it guarantees I won't be buying one of them because of the potential for harm to my camera, etc.
- cpncrunch 11y agoI don't know, but Phantom have been doing it for years, so you could see how they do it.
- caffinatedmonk 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CzURm7OpAA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CzURm7OpAA
- cpncrunch 11y ago
- cpncrunch 11y ago>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away. Yes, it's definitely a good idea that will stop casual drone users from being somewhere they shouldn't be flying. Here is a good example (see the description): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7y8-gkkN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7y8-gkkN0 The vast majority of drone users won't bother looking up the aviation charts to see if they are inside a control zone or other controlled airspace, and won't have any idea how far away they are from an airport.
- Zigurd 11y agoAs soon as drones are required to have geofencing, you will find they become useless for monitoring the police, factory farms, pollution, "black" sites, etc. Humans die because of those things, while no practical benefit to aviation safety has been proven. And yeah, controlled airspace has been used to prevent monitoring of police, in Ferguson, for example.
- sosborn 11y agoIf we argue that regulations don't stop criminals (DRM etc) then doesn't it also hold true that regulations wouldn't stop do-gooders? (sorry, not the best word).
- iamnothere 11y agoIt wouldn't stop activists from filming "restricted" areas, no, but it could give authorities a way to tack on additional charges ("terroristic disabling of an aviation safety device" or the like) when they inevitably find the person who leaked the video.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cpncrunch 11y ago
- Splines 11y agoThere's a danger to this though; if drone pilots are universally expected to be warned when they fly in dangerous areas, then pilots will start flying "to the edge" and expect the technology to always keep them in line. I would be surprised if restricted areas were stable enough that drones could store a database of no-go areas and keep it up to date easily. It would be more straightforward to set clear policy and provide a way for drone pilots to know where not to fly (e.g., provide an online map and require altitude telemetry to the controller at all times). Include a link to this information with every drone purchase. My guess of what will happen if we go down the GPS route: Some incident with a drone will occur, and the pilot will say something like "the drone didn't warn me that I was in a restricted area".
- hirsin 11y agoThat's actually good precedent to bring up - has e.g. Google Maps or more infamously, Apple Maps, ever been held liable for bad directions? I believe it's still seen as the end user's responsibility to obey the laws, especially when the safeguards fail.
- Jtsummers 11y agoA friend recently (several months ago) was fined because he trusted Google Maps to be accurate and drove into an otherwise unmarked (by the route he took into it) wilderness protection area. He got the minimal fine because he demonstrated that he'd tried to obey the law (showed that Google Maps marked the areas, but marked them incorrectly), but he was still fined.
- ryanlol 11y agoDid he contest that fine in court? If not, why is this story relevant?
- Jtsummers 11y agoHe did. Because it's a demonstration of how the court system (at least in the US) generally works. Pleading ignorance of the law when violating it, even when you use tools that are supposed to prevent that violation, doesn't always work. Anyone using these systems should still be aware of what they're doing and where they're allowed to go and should consider them mitigators, at best, when they get caught in violation of air space.
- deckar01 11y agoDJI products quite effectively indicate and restrict access to no fly zones. My controller starts to beep if I get within a few hundred feet of a border to a no fly zone. I haven't tested it, but I think it is supposed to come home and land if you somehow get into a no fly zone. That said, 1,700ft is so high, no fly zones don't really mean much anymore.
- SixSigma 11y agoDrones are already forbidden by law from flying higher than 400ft.
- jsmthrowaway 11y agoThey aren't, actually, and people parrot this falsehood all the time. If we assume you're referring to the United States, don't conflate proposed rules, rules, guidelines, and law, nor circumstances that require you to seek FAA authorization for the flight (which is different than "forbidden by law," itself inaccurate). You are talking about Advisory Circular 91-57 (Model Aircraft Operating Standards) from June 1981. Not law, just standards for their airspace. Certainly not forbiddance by law.
- SixSigma 11y agoThe FAA doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK The CAA sets the laws here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30387107 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30387107
- matheweis 11y agoWhere? In the US it is still legal to fly over 400' for hobby purposes when flying under the safety guidelines of a community based organization.
- SixSigma 11y agoIn the UK, where this incident happened.
- SixSigma 11y agoIt is illegal for your drone to be more than 500m away from you laterally and 122m vertically. How would you expect to hit a plane ?
- gruturo 11y agoIllegally?