3 ms·

Funny you should say that. Amount of terrorism in th united states and the number of people killed by it fortunately doesnt support your claim.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
romwell 9y ago
Forget that they mentioned terrorism, the claim is still valid, e.g. We need a way to enforce any proposed drone regulation, so that when a stupid teenager drops a malfunctioning drone on your head from 300ft, you are not left wondering why they didn't register.
- tehlike 9y ago
  In this litiguous country, that teenager is probably up for some hefty lawsuit anyway.
  - romwell 9y ago
    That's the OP's point: in a situation where you might want to have the drone registered, the operator is probably breaking some other laws, and would be unlikely to have their drone registered. That is, the registration is not helpful, and so should not be implemented in the form proposed by the FAA.
- late2part 9y ago
  No, we don't. Your laws won't protect a stupid teenager from dropping a malfunctioning drone on your head. Unless you meant technical enforcement, which that less stupid teenager can hack?
  - romwell 9y ago
    I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the same thing you are saying - that having laws on the book won't prevent a bad thing from happening. It's a general principle that laws that can't be enforced should not be introduced. On the other thing, we definitely do want to prevent certain bad things (malicious or accidentally wrongful) use of drones from happening. We do need to have a legal framework which would allow us to reduce the rate of such incidents - both by active intervention and by providing negative incentives to the wrongdoers. Registration does not accomplish this, nor would any law of the form "this is not allowed". As for technical enforcement - possibly yes, if it prevents a large percentage of undesired incidents. For instance, requiring GPS-enabled drones to avoid airports could alleviate a lot of concerns, and won't be harmful to the law-abiding consumer.
    - late2part 9y ago
      You're right, I did misunderstand you. Thanks for clarifying.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

romwell 9y ago

Forget that they mentioned terrorism, the claim is still valid, e.g. We need a way to enforce any proposed drone regulation, so that when a stupid teenager drops a malfunctioning drone on your head from 300ft, you are not left wondering why they didn't register.

tehlike 9y ago
In this litiguous country, that teenager is probably up for some hefty lawsuit anyway.
- romwell 9y ago
  That's the OP's point: in a situation where you might want to have the drone registered, the operator is probably breaking some other laws, and would be unlikely to have their drone registered. That is, the registration is not helpful, and so should not be implemented in the form proposed by the FAA.
late2part 9y ago
No, we don't. Your laws won't protect a stupid teenager from dropping a malfunctioning drone on your head. Unless you meant technical enforcement, which that less stupid teenager can hack?
- romwell 9y ago
  I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the same thing you are saying - that having laws on the book won't prevent a bad thing from happening. It's a general principle that laws that can't be enforced should not be introduced. On the other thing, we definitely do want to prevent certain bad things (malicious or accidentally wrongful) use of drones from happening. We do need to have a legal framework which would allow us to reduce the rate of such incidents - both by active intervention and by providing negative incentives to the wrongdoers. Registration does not accomplish this, nor would any law of the form "this is not allowed". As for technical enforcement - possibly yes, if it prevents a large percentage of undesired incidents. For instance, requiring GPS-enabled drones to avoid airports could alleviate a lot of concerns, and won't be harmful to the law-abiding consumer.
  - late2part 9y ago
    You're right, I did misunderstand you. Thanks for clarifying.