4 ms·

Hmm, maybe when I own the device, I should be able to use it without interference ( and suffer the appropriate consequences ). I wonder if you be posting the sa

Hmm, maybe when I own the device, I should be able to use it without interference ( and suffer the appropriate consequences ). I wonder if you be posting the same thing if say.. your automaker made your car refuse to enter Boston, as it was just designated a no drive zone. Rules matter and should be enforced. Just not via limiting my ownership rights.

shakna 7y ago
Your car however carries registration, which has a strong papertrail that leads directly to you, which can easily be observed from a distance. Drones on the other hand may not carry registration requirements at all (depending on jurisdiction, power and weight), and building one yourself doesn't require more-than-hobbyist level knowledge of engineering. A technical solution probably is required, but what that technical solution is I can't say.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "A technical solution probably is required, but what that technical solution is I can't say." The government could make drones that shoot down unauthorized drones.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    It's safer to not need to do this at all.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  in the US, any drone above 250g must be registered with the FAA. there are very few drones below this weight that can hover in place or be controlled at all from more than 100 feet away away. the new DJI mavic mini is a notable exception. I know it's tempting to essentially say "fuck them, just force them to comply" when people partaking in an activity you don't really care about cause problems, but imo this is not the best solution for a free society. if you believe car registration creates an effective deterrent, why not advocate for stricter registration requirements for drones? if you believe drone enthusiasts are ignorant, why not require an exam? > building one yourself doesn't require more-than-hobbyist level knowledge of engineering this seems like a red herring in your argument. the DIY crowd is not likely to bother implementing no-fly-zone enforcement in their own project.
  - shakna 7y ago
    I don't think you've really grasped what I'm saying at all. I do care about drones, I've built several myself. A technical solution doesn't come without regulation, so yes, this area does need better regulation, so that people can't ruin a hobby with terrible behaviour such as getting in the way of fire-fighting. (I'm Australian, bushfires are one of our hot-button issues.) The regulation can be used to enforce the technical solution, so that the DIY crowd knows there is a hurdle to entry they need to comply with. Some won't, but you'll have significantly less unknown drones in serious danger areas. I don't have a significant answer, and I've already said that.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      based on the original comment you were responding to, I assumed you were arguing in favor of software controls. my apologies, I should have read your post more carefully.
jimktrains2 7y ago
Gp said that the drones currently obey static no fly zones. If you bought a car knowing it will refuse to enter static no-drive zones, you shouldn't be surprised when it refuses to drive into temporary no-drive zones. Is any licensure required for large drones? For instance, the amateur radio exams, specifically the technician (first level), don't require a ton of study, but you do need to know the rules to pass and be granted the associated privileges. From there, radios are fairly open and don't place many or any restrictions in software or hardware.
- NickNameNick 7y ago
  The 'drone' rules situation in the US is a mess. When I stopped paying attention (Not in the US) The drone community, and Academy of model Aeronautics, the FAA and Congress were in a weird four way fight. Congress had told The FAA they were explicitly not allowed to regulate model aircraft, and delegated some regulation powers to hobbyist groups, the only recognised group being the AMA. The drone community doesn't want to respect the AMA regulations, because the rules don't accommodate first person or semi autonomous control of aircraft or commercial uses. But there is no-one else to advocate for the drone users when the FAA starts trying to regulate drones.

shakna 7y ago

Your car however carries registration, which has a strong papertrail that leads directly to you, which can easily be observed from a distance. Drones on the other hand may not carry registration requirements at all (depending on jurisdiction, power and weight), and building one yourself doesn't require more-than-hobbyist level knowledge of engineering. A technical solution probably is required, but what that technical solution is I can't say.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"A technical solution probably is required, but what that technical solution is I can't say." The government could make drones that shoot down unauthorized drones.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  It's safer to not need to do this at all.
leetcrew 7y ago
in the US, any drone above 250g must be registered with the FAA. there are very few drones below this weight that can hover in place or be controlled at all from more than 100 feet away away. the new DJI mavic mini is a notable exception. I know it's tempting to essentially say "fuck them, just force them to comply" when people partaking in an activity you don't really care about cause problems, but imo this is not the best solution for a free society. if you believe car registration creates an effective deterrent, why not advocate for stricter registration requirements for drones? if you believe drone enthusiasts are ignorant, why not require an exam? > building one yourself doesn't require more-than-hobbyist level knowledge of engineering this seems like a red herring in your argument. the DIY crowd is not likely to bother implementing no-fly-zone enforcement in their own project.
- shakna 7y ago
  I don't think you've really grasped what I'm saying at all. I do care about drones, I've built several myself. A technical solution doesn't come without regulation, so yes, this area does need better regulation, so that people can't ruin a hobby with terrible behaviour such as getting in the way of fire-fighting. (I'm Australian, bushfires are one of our hot-button issues.) The regulation can be used to enforce the technical solution, so that the DIY crowd knows there is a hurdle to entry they need to comply with. Some won't, but you'll have significantly less unknown drones in serious danger areas. I don't have a significant answer, and I've already said that.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    based on the original comment you were responding to, I assumed you were arguing in favor of software controls. my apologies, I should have read your post more carefully.

jimktrains2 7y ago

Gp said that the drones currently obey static no fly zones. If you bought a car knowing it will refuse to enter static no-drive zones, you shouldn't be surprised when it refuses to drive into temporary no-drive zones. Is any licensure required for large drones? For instance, the amateur radio exams, specifically the technician (first level), don't require a ton of study, but you do need to know the rules to pass and be granted the associated privileges. From there, radios are fairly open and don't place many or any restrictions in software or hardware.

NickNameNick 7y ago
The 'drone' rules situation in the US is a mess. When I stopped paying attention (Not in the US) The drone community, and Academy of model Aeronautics, the FAA and Congress were in a weird four way fight. Congress had told The FAA they were explicitly not allowed to regulate model aircraft, and delegated some regulation powers to hobbyist groups, the only recognised group being the AMA. The drone community doesn't want to respect the AMA regulations, because the rules don't accommodate first person or semi autonomous control of aircraft or commercial uses. But there is no-one else to advocate for the drone users when the FAA starts trying to regulate drones.