5 ms·

I upvoted you, not because I agree, but because you raised a reasonable point that clearly generated some intelligent debate. I think the problem is that modern

I upvoted you, not because I agree, but because you raised a reasonable point that clearly generated some intelligent debate. I think the problem is that modern technology has resulted in cheaply available "tools" (to use your term) that have the capacity to cause great and irreparable harm to large numbers of other people (see the comments regarding drones and airplanes, for instance), and consequently must be proactively restricted, not merely regulated after the fact with criminal or civil penalties. Such is the nature of the modern world that produced technologies like the drone. We can no longer afford to leave the use of these technologies up to the good judgment of individuals, because there will always be a minority who can't or won't exercise it. The iPhone is another question entirely, I agree with you there.

leetcrew 7y ago
I strongly disagree. as a matter of principle, I don't accept that a device I own should do anything more or less that what I tell it to do. I don't expect HN to agree with me on this principle, so I will also present a practical argument. these kinds of controls that protect users from wrongdoing tend to be implemented incredibly crudely. my house is close enough to a major airport that it triggers DJI's flight restriction. if the drone happens to get a GPS fix inside my house it will deactivate itself and land. there's no way a small drone can be a threat to the public when it's hovering inside my living room, and I'm pretty sure the legal restrictions don't apply inside of a structure anyway.
- diminoten 7y ago
  I, as a member of the public, am glad you don't get to decide, with your own judgement, what is and isn't safe to do around an airport in this specific case. Honestly, I wish more laws could be enforced this way. Your judgement, in aggregate, can safely be assumed to suck, by me, someone who doesn't know you. It may not actually suck, but in situations where you can clearly and obviously harm me (hitting a plane with your drone), I don't want you to have any choices in the matter. Sorry, but others have ruined the fun for both of us.
- 205guy 7y ago
  This is a fascinating discussion that I think gets to the heart of the matter, but is still missing the key point: can you ever own something with software? I up voted the sibling comment (diminoten) even though it was a bit aggressive. Leetcrew say s/he doesn't trust the controls programmed "crudely" by others. But the sibling logically points out that leetcrew's actions could be just as crude from the others' point of view. I think leetcrew's principles are misdirected here. With software, you can't really own the device. Look at the librem5 debacle: you can't control the radios because the FCC doesn't license unlocked radios. If you had a ham license you could buy and operate any radio the way you want (within the rules). What's really missing is disclosure. DJI should be clearly documenting their software controls and all geographic restrictions so you know exactly what capabilities you are paying for.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    I'm glad you brought up ham radio licenses. drones can certainly be dangerous if they are misused. although it would be inconvenient for me, I would not oppose stricter licensing requirements for drones and other potentially dangerous products. it could even be required to buy one in the first place. requiring a license says something like "we need to know that you understand the rules and are capable of following them". software controls imply "we don't trust you to follow the rules, even if you understand them". I realize this is a matter of opinion, but I think the second message is just inappropriate for a citizen in a free society.
    - 205guy 7y ago
      But the free market is working: there are permitless drones available (with idiot-proofing software), or you can buy or build a "DRM-free" drone, and now the gov't essentially says you need a permit/license to fly it. I've seen youtube channels of the commercial drone pilots (ads/TV/cinema) who had to spend $10K+ to get a pilot's license. There is still a middle ground of "unlocked" drones that you only need to register with FAA to use, but you still need to follow the rules yourself. But it is in the drone manufacturers interest to self-regulate to avoid being banned altogether. If too many yahoos and others (see Gatwick incidents) cause problems, authorities can easily kill their profitable industry. So I think these "personal-responsibility" drones will quickly be phased out by the industry.
sneak 7y ago
Ehh, I don’t think that justifies it. Furthermore, it isn’t illegal to sell drones without these restrictions; DJI has done this voluntarily. There have always been tools of mass destruction available in our society. You can buy unlimited quantities of gasoline and propane without the nozzle tips doing a cryptographic handshake ensuring that you’re putting it into a car and only a car. Same goes for explosives. They’re readily available, without scrutiny. It’s sufficient having laws against murder and blowing things up. We don’t need technological restrictions. Indeed, the law does not require them for drones. This is purely DJI being proactive and fucking their customers.
sneak 7y ago
> We can no longer afford to leave the use of these technologies up to the good judgment of individuals, because there will always be a minority who can't or won't exercise it. Then why is it entirely legal for me or anyone else without a prior criminal record to buy a machine gun? Why, despite that fact, are no mass murders committed with machine guns? There is a large body of evidence and experience that refutes your claim.
- rrdharan 7y ago
  > Why, despite that fact, are no mass murders committed with machine guns? Because it’s cheaper and easier to get and use a bump stock? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
  - sneak 7y ago
    Why aren’t more mass murders carried out with bump stocks, then, instead of just the one? Why aren’t there more IEDs when gasoline is sold on every corner? Why is the flying of private aircraft (small or large) as weapons still an insanely rare event? Why don’t we see hundreds of mass stabbings with knives? It turns out that most people do not want to harm or endanger others. We don’t need technological restrictions. Laws and education are more than sufficient, as is presently being demonstrated every day in our society. Our society entirely breaks down without trust. People do not want to hurt you. Move in the other direction.
    - vannevar 7y ago
      We don’t need technological restrictions. Laws and education are more than sufficient, as is presently being demonstrated every day in our society. Yes, these events are rare. The vast majority of people are not murderous sociopaths. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take prudent precautions agains those who are, or simply against otherwise good people who may be careless. Sure, you can do bad things with gasoline. But it's not that easy, you need a lot of it to do significant damage. And you can't just jump in a plane, their use is strictly regulated for precisely the reasons we're talking about. To do bad things with an airplane, you still have to be in it to boot, which cuts down the number of potential bad guys by a couple of orders of magnitude. And there are lots of stabbings, but if you're going to do a mass attack, guns are so easy to get here in the US that it makes no sense to do so. Mass stabbings only happen in places where guns are tightly regulated, and it's worth noting that the death toll is (predictably) much lower than in a mass shooting with semi-automatic weapons. We clearly do need restrictions on the availability and use of potentially destructive technology, which is exactly why we already have them in many cases. That need is demonstrated every day in our society.
nwallin 7y ago
The potential harm that can be caused by a <2lb quadcopter is utterly microscopic compared to the damage that can be caused by motor vehicles. Yet the regulatory burden on a small quadcopter is an order of magnitude more complex than that of a two ton pickup. You have to juggle the requirements of multiple federal agencies, and state and municipal regulations are a dime a dozen. In most jurisdictions, the regulatory burden of a small quadcopter is significantly greater than that of an AR-15. The potential harm vs utility argument doesn't even register here.
- vannevar 7y ago
  But is this an argument that quadcopters be regulated less, or that motor vehicles be regulated more? We've lived with the carnage motor vehicles wreak mostly out of blind habit: it's taken as normal. But that was true of many destructive activities in the past that we eventually stopped or mitigated. Certainly that's one big motivation for autonomous vehicles, which are the ultimate example of taking control away from the hands of the user.

leetcrew 7y ago

I strongly disagree. as a matter of principle, I don't accept that a device I own should do anything more or less that what I tell it to do. I don't expect HN to agree with me on this principle, so I will also present a practical argument. these kinds of controls that protect users from wrongdoing tend to be implemented incredibly crudely. my house is close enough to a major airport that it triggers DJI's flight restriction. if the drone happens to get a GPS fix inside my house it will deactivate itself and land. there's no way a small drone can be a threat to the public when it's hovering inside my living room, and I'm pretty sure the legal restrictions don't apply inside of a structure anyway.

diminoten 7y ago
I, as a member of the public, am glad you don't get to decide, with your own judgement, what is and isn't safe to do around an airport in this specific case. Honestly, I wish more laws could be enforced this way. Your judgement, in aggregate, can safely be assumed to suck, by me, someone who doesn't know you. It may not actually suck, but in situations where you can clearly and obviously harm me (hitting a plane with your drone), I don't want you to have any choices in the matter. Sorry, but others have ruined the fun for both of us.
205guy 7y ago
This is a fascinating discussion that I think gets to the heart of the matter, but is still missing the key point: can you ever own something with software? I up voted the sibling comment (diminoten) even though it was a bit aggressive. Leetcrew say s/he doesn't trust the controls programmed "crudely" by others. But the sibling logically points out that leetcrew's actions could be just as crude from the others' point of view. I think leetcrew's principles are misdirected here. With software, you can't really own the device. Look at the librem5 debacle: you can't control the radios because the FCC doesn't license unlocked radios. If you had a ham license you could buy and operate any radio the way you want (within the rules). What's really missing is disclosure. DJI should be clearly documenting their software controls and all geographic restrictions so you know exactly what capabilities you are paying for.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  I'm glad you brought up ham radio licenses. drones can certainly be dangerous if they are misused. although it would be inconvenient for me, I would not oppose stricter licensing requirements for drones and other potentially dangerous products. it could even be required to buy one in the first place. requiring a license says something like "we need to know that you understand the rules and are capable of following them". software controls imply "we don't trust you to follow the rules, even if you understand them". I realize this is a matter of opinion, but I think the second message is just inappropriate for a citizen in a free society.
  - 205guy 7y ago
    But the free market is working: there are permitless drones available (with idiot-proofing software), or you can buy or build a "DRM-free" drone, and now the gov't essentially says you need a permit/license to fly it. I've seen youtube channels of the commercial drone pilots (ads/TV/cinema) who had to spend $10K+ to get a pilot's license. There is still a middle ground of "unlocked" drones that you only need to register with FAA to use, but you still need to follow the rules yourself. But it is in the drone manufacturers interest to self-regulate to avoid being banned altogether. If too many yahoos and others (see Gatwick incidents) cause problems, authorities can easily kill their profitable industry. So I think these "personal-responsibility" drones will quickly be phased out by the industry.

sneak 7y ago

Ehh, I don’t think that justifies it. Furthermore, it isn’t illegal to sell drones without these restrictions; DJI has done this voluntarily. There have always been tools of mass destruction available in our society. You can buy unlimited quantities of gasoline and propane without the nozzle tips doing a cryptographic handshake ensuring that you’re putting it into a car and only a car. Same goes for explosives. They’re readily available, without scrutiny. It’s sufficient having laws against murder and blowing things up. We don’t need technological restrictions. Indeed, the law does not require them for drones. This is purely DJI being proactive and fucking their customers.

sneak 7y ago

> We can no longer afford to leave the use of these technologies up to the good judgment of individuals, because there will always be a minority who can't or won't exercise it. Then why is it entirely legal for me or anyone else without a prior criminal record to buy a machine gun? Why, despite that fact, are no mass murders committed with machine guns? There is a large body of evidence and experience that refutes your claim.

rrdharan 7y ago
> Why, despite that fact, are no mass murders committed with machine guns? Because it’s cheaper and easier to get and use a bump stock? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
- sneak 7y ago
  Why aren’t more mass murders carried out with bump stocks, then, instead of just the one? Why aren’t there more IEDs when gasoline is sold on every corner? Why is the flying of private aircraft (small or large) as weapons still an insanely rare event? Why don’t we see hundreds of mass stabbings with knives? It turns out that most people do not want to harm or endanger others. We don’t need technological restrictions. Laws and education are more than sufficient, as is presently being demonstrated every day in our society. Our society entirely breaks down without trust. People do not want to hurt you. Move in the other direction.
  - vannevar 7y ago
    We don’t need technological restrictions. Laws and education are more than sufficient, as is presently being demonstrated every day in our society. Yes, these events are rare. The vast majority of people are not murderous sociopaths. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take prudent precautions agains those who are, or simply against otherwise good people who may be careless. Sure, you can do bad things with gasoline. But it's not that easy, you need a lot of it to do significant damage. And you can't just jump in a plane, their use is strictly regulated for precisely the reasons we're talking about. To do bad things with an airplane, you still have to be in it to boot, which cuts down the number of potential bad guys by a couple of orders of magnitude. And there are lots of stabbings, but if you're going to do a mass attack, guns are so easy to get here in the US that it makes no sense to do so. Mass stabbings only happen in places where guns are tightly regulated, and it's worth noting that the death toll is (predictably) much lower than in a mass shooting with semi-automatic weapons. We clearly do need restrictions on the availability and use of potentially destructive technology, which is exactly why we already have them in many cases. That need is demonstrated every day in our society.

nwallin 7y ago

The potential harm that can be caused by a <2lb quadcopter is utterly microscopic compared to the damage that can be caused by motor vehicles. Yet the regulatory burden on a small quadcopter is an order of magnitude more complex than that of a two ton pickup. You have to juggle the requirements of multiple federal agencies, and state and municipal regulations are a dime a dozen. In most jurisdictions, the regulatory burden of a small quadcopter is significantly greater than that of an AR-15. The potential harm vs utility argument doesn't even register here.

vannevar 7y ago
But is this an argument that quadcopters be regulated less, or that motor vehicles be regulated more? We've lived with the carnage motor vehicles wreak mostly out of blind habit: it's taken as normal. But that was true of many destructive activities in the past that we eventually stopped or mitigated. Certainly that's one big motivation for autonomous vehicles, which are the ultimate example of taking control away from the hands of the user.