4 ms·

> 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. W

> 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.

cpncrunch 11y ago
>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. It's not useless. Do you fly planes? If you look at the youtube video I posted elsewhere in this thread you'll see that the guy wanted to fly near the airport on the beach, but the geo fence wouldn't let him. The beach is <0.5nm from the end of the runways, so planes will be at <300ft crossing the beach. I fly there myself, and I don't want to hit a drone and risk losing the engine or having it crash through the windshield into my face. Unfortunately we need laws like this because people aren't responsible, as that youtube video proves.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  Useless because it's billed as stopping terrorists. Let's be honest, consider ham radios; the mandated but easily bypassed hardware lockouts are more useful for market segmentation than preventing bad guys from broadcasting on ATC frequencies. So as a convenience feature that told me I the conditions for where I'm flying, it'd be great. And then it'd only need to be 4-nines, and wouldn't have to have fail-proof lockouts, etc. But as a major portion of the defense of our air fleet - no. That's ridiculous. If we're that worried we need to figure out something to actually make us safer, not add another perpetual layer of theater.
icebraining 11y ago
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. I'm not sure that seeing an actual implementation is required for politician to have harebrained ideas. Besides, as others have pointed out, geofencing has already been implemented by DJI, so we're past that phase anyway.

cpncrunch 11y ago

>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. It's not useless. Do you fly planes? If you look at the youtube video I posted elsewhere in this thread you'll see that the guy wanted to fly near the airport on the beach, but the geo fence wouldn't let him. The beach is <0.5nm from the end of the runways, so planes will be at <300ft crossing the beach. I fly there myself, and I don't want to hit a drone and risk losing the engine or having it crash through the windshield into my face. Unfortunately we need laws like this because people aren't responsible, as that youtube video proves.

EdHominem 11y ago
Useless because it's billed as stopping terrorists. Let's be honest, consider ham radios; the mandated but easily bypassed hardware lockouts are more useful for market segmentation than preventing bad guys from broadcasting on ATC frequencies. So as a convenience feature that told me I the conditions for where I'm flying, it'd be great. And then it'd only need to be 4-nines, and wouldn't have to have fail-proof lockouts, etc. But as a major portion of the defense of our air fleet - no. That's ridiculous. If we're that worried we need to figure out something to actually make us safer, not add another perpetual layer of theater.

icebraining 11y ago

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. I'm not sure that seeing an actual implementation is required for politician to have harebrained ideas. Besides, as others have pointed out, geofencing has already been implemented by DJI, so we're past that phase anyway.