3 ms·

Another recent example where regulations were (relatively) quick to address some new tech/gadget: drones. It was recognized by law makers that drones could be

Another recent example where regulations were (relatively) quick to address some new tech/gadget: drones. It was recognized by law makers that drones could be used for nefarious purposes and needed some form of regulation. I'm not saying that drone registration thwarts illegal use, but at least something was done by regulators.

icebraining 7y ago
> at least something was done That's an example of the politician's fallacy. Doing something can be much worse than doing nothing. Did drone registration actually improve anything?
alpaca128 7y ago
That drones could be used for nefarious purposes was kind of obvious after years of deadly US drone strikes. That didn't seem to tip off regulators, however. Not until anyone could buy drones capable of carrying heavy cameras or other equipment anywhere. Either way these regulations don't help much when people just don't care, as can be seen with all the drones flying too close to airports.
- zentiggr 7y ago
  Pretty sure nobody was going to buying surplus/refurb Predators and flying them around the neighborhood. When the recreational/commercial models got range and mass enough to get in the way of aircraft, that's when the first round of "whoa!" kicked in. Still going to take more work to figure out reasonable controls.
jdietrich 7y ago
>I'm not saying that drone registration thwarts illegal use, but at least something was done by regulators. Drone regulation has done precisely nothing to thwart illegal use, while imposing substantial cost and inconvenience on legitimate actors. The laws don't stop me from buying a heavy-lift drone from China, nor do they stop me from doing something nefarious with it. At best, the regulations have slightly reduced the risk of inadvertent airprox incidents, but they have been utterly useless in addressing the sorts of risks they were supposed to combat.

icebraining 7y ago

> at least something was done That's an example of the politician's fallacy. Doing something can be much worse than doing nothing. Did drone registration actually improve anything?

alpaca128 7y ago

That drones could be used for nefarious purposes was kind of obvious after years of deadly US drone strikes. That didn't seem to tip off regulators, however. Not until anyone could buy drones capable of carrying heavy cameras or other equipment anywhere. Either way these regulations don't help much when people just don't care, as can be seen with all the drones flying too close to airports.

zentiggr 7y ago
Pretty sure nobody was going to buying surplus/refurb Predators and flying them around the neighborhood. When the recreational/commercial models got range and mass enough to get in the way of aircraft, that's when the first round of "whoa!" kicked in. Still going to take more work to figure out reasonable controls.

jdietrich 7y ago

>I'm not saying that drone registration thwarts illegal use, but at least something was done by regulators. Drone regulation has done precisely nothing to thwart illegal use, while imposing substantial cost and inconvenience on legitimate actors. The laws don't stop me from buying a heavy-lift drone from China, nor do they stop me from doing something nefarious with it. At best, the regulations have slightly reduced the risk of inadvertent airprox incidents, but they have been utterly useless in addressing the sorts of risks they were supposed to combat.