3 ms·

American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to go out

American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to go outside without drones hitting my face. The freedom to fly one is secondary and predicated on the demonstrated ability to not hit me with it.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to be the case.
- MawNicker 10y ago
  > I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.
aioprisan 10y ago
You don't own the airspace over your property though, the FAA does. I can stay at up to 400 feet over your property if I'm not over a densely populated area. Flying a drone over someone's house is plain stupid as well and should be avoided, but I can see a future where Amazon flies hundreds of drones at 400ft over someone's property as long as it's not densely populated, and destroying a drone will land the property owner in jail charged with a fellony, punishable up to 20 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20-years-in-prison-211541710.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20...
- ghaff 10y ago
  Perhaps. There's at least some (though certainly not definitive) case law that suggest home owners have rights to 500 ft. or so above their property. e.g. http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-who-owns-your-airspace-1431535417 http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-... Though that's probably not all that relevant. To the degree that high-traffic package delivery by drone were to imminently become a thing, I'd expect rules to be quickly established at some level(s) of government. It's not clear to me that those rules won't tend to favor property owners.

6stringmerc 10y ago

Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to be the case.

MawNicker 10y ago
> I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.

aioprisan 10y ago

You don't own the airspace over your property though, the FAA does. I can stay at up to 400 feet over your property if I'm not over a densely populated area. Flying a drone over someone's house is plain stupid as well and should be avoided, but I can see a future where Amazon flies hundreds of drones at 400ft over someone's property as long as it's not densely populated, and destroying a drone will land the property owner in jail charged with a fellony, punishable up to 20 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20-years-in-prison-211541710.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20...

ghaff 10y ago
Perhaps. There's at least some (though certainly not definitive) case law that suggest home owners have rights to 500 ft. or so above their property. e.g. http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-who-owns-your-airspace-1431535417 http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-... Though that's probably not all that relevant. To the degree that high-traffic package delivery by drone were to imminently become a thing, I'd expect rules to be quickly established at some level(s) of government. It's not clear to me that those rules won't tend to favor property owners.