4 ms·

The point I was trying to make is that the gov't has no clear principles on what is dangerous; just politics and money. Deregulating drone operation seems to m

by hashkb 8y ago

The point I was trying to make is that the gov't has no clear principles on what is dangerous; just politics and money. Deregulating drone operation seems to me like something you could choose to make very frightening, if you were in that business. Engaging your argument... domestic terrorism / mass murder of citizens by citizens is quite real.

the_reformation 8y ago
An FAA regulation isn't going to stop a domestic terrorist.
- Retra 8y ago
  When you take something from "permitted" to "restricted", you turn actions from "normal" to "suspicious", and that definitely acts as a signal for observers and a deterrent. The FAA requires airline doors to be secured. Why would you assume that does nothing to stop a domestic terrorist? I can't imagine why you'd even say such a thing.
vokep 8y ago
Of course domestic terrorism exists, but it isn't frequent and it doesn't seem that more ability for any given citizen to carry out a specific terrorist attack correlates with more domestic terrorists attacks in general. The fear around borders is different, as with borders, even when everything is working as intended, there is still a constant threat of people who want to cross the border illegally. With a secured border they will try and fail to cross (ideally), without border security, they will cross. With drones, regulations like these only better outline how law-abiding citizens should act. The threat of terrorism isn't dealt with with regulation like this, it already is very illegal to do anything terrorizing on purpose with a drone, so a regulation about flying at night doesn't protect from that. With the border I mentioned how its an ever present threat, well, with drones it isn't. It can become a major threat if society was less stable perhaps, but as is, not enough people want to commit terrorism via drones for it to be a threat in the public mind. All this said, it absolutely can become a fear campaign with drones. I can't remember specifics, but I know I've witnessed a handful of incidents where someone was injured at a park or similar location and subsequently got regulation to ban/limit drone use at the park or similar location. Incidents like that would only need to be a bit more numerous and a nationwide anti-drone campaign could work. Even already if it was made a partisan issue, many would pick a side with strong confidence.

by hashkb 8y ago

the_reformation 8y ago

An FAA regulation isn't going to stop a domestic terrorist.

Retra 8y ago
When you take something from "permitted" to "restricted", you turn actions from "normal" to "suspicious", and that definitely acts as a signal for observers and a deterrent. The FAA requires airline doors to be secured. Why would you assume that does nothing to stop a domestic terrorist? I can't imagine why you'd even say such a thing.

vokep 8y ago

Of course domestic terrorism exists, but it isn't frequent and it doesn't seem that more ability for any given citizen to carry out a specific terrorist attack correlates with more domestic terrorists attacks in general. The fear around borders is different, as with borders, even when everything is working as intended, there is still a constant threat of people who want to cross the border illegally. With a secured border they will try and fail to cross (ideally), without border security, they will cross. With drones, regulations like these only better outline how law-abiding citizens should act. The threat of terrorism isn't dealt with with regulation like this, it already is very illegal to do anything terrorizing on purpose with a drone, so a regulation about flying at night doesn't protect from that. With the border I mentioned how its an ever present threat, well, with drones it isn't. It can become a major threat if society was less stable perhaps, but as is, not enough people want to commit terrorism via drones for it to be a threat in the public mind. All this said, it absolutely can become a fear campaign with drones. I can't remember specifics, but I know I've witnessed a handful of incidents where someone was injured at a park or similar location and subsequently got regulation to ban/limit drone use at the park or similar location. Incidents like that would only need to be a bit more numerous and a nationwide anti-drone campaign could work. Even already if it was made a partisan issue, many would pick a side with strong confidence.