6 ms·

Honestly, after ignoring these two letters he was _begging_ the FAA to make an example of him. Fine him $500 after two stern warnings? That's a good way to mak

by hh3k0 6y ago

Honestly, after ignoring these two letters he was _begging_ the FAA to make an example of him. Fine him $500 after two stern warnings? That's a good way to make sure that absolutely no one will heed any of your warnings in the future. I don't see anything totalitarian about it. I wonder, is GP by any chance a libertarian? The man is getting his just deserts, and that's all there is to it.

Clubber 6y ago
How about a million dollar fine then? Is that excessive? Here's the text of the 8th amendment of the US Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
- hh3k0 6y ago
  It is not excessive, if one operates a drone recklessly with no regards for air traffic over a busy city… well, that behavior is endangering many. As far as I am concerned, he is no better than someone who tries to blind pilots with a laser pointer (and there's precedent for that): > Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. (Source: fbi.gov) Kudos to the FAA for nipping that in the bud.
  - Clubber 6y ago
    How about speeding tickets then? Speeders certainly endanger many. Would you argue that a $182,000 speeding ticket isn't excessive either? If not, what's the differentiator in your opinion?
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      Honestly? If someone drives as recklessly as the fined has piloted his drone and in a similiar setting i.e. a busy city… yes, please. By all means, fine a multiple offender $182,000 for repeatedly endangering a great number of human lives.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      You can be arrested for reckless driving, spend time in jail, pay a fine, and lose your license.
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      If you're able to endanger a comparable number of lives while driving, you're probably a bus driver who will receive more serious punishment for speeding than someone in their Honda Civic
curtainsforus 6y ago
Going from a warning to a sum most people would never be able to pay off seems pretty steep. Go in powers of 10, or something. 1k, 10k, 100k.
- hh3k0 6y ago
  It is my understanding that he received two warnings. Receiving two warnings before getting a fine is extremely lenient.
  - bradlys 6y ago
    Would you say the same for someone getting two warnings and then getting a speeding ticket fine that was for $180k? For most people, that’s not payable in a lifetime.
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      If the speeding took place in a similar context (i.e. a busy city) and he repeatedly endangered a great number of human lives? Yes, I would say the same.
  - curtainsforus 6y ago
    180000 dollars doesn't seem lenient to me. But really, I don't care if it's extremely lenient by some standard. I care what policy will best dissuade antisocial behaviour with the minimal necessary fines imposed. Clearly, in your view, a written warning from the FCC is obviously serious business, and if you got one you'd interpret it as such and immediately desist from whatever incited it. As this guy and the people disagreeing with you show, this attitude isn't universal. Two warnings and then immediate financial execution just seems insane. If the the first and second letters had come with 1000 and 10000 dollar fines attached, almost everyone would have stopped by the first, let alone the second. There, no need to turn people into lifelong indentured servants. (Of course, I imagine there's an incentive to maximize the amount of fines you collect, so that explains why it wouldn't happen that way.)
    - 6y ago
emteycz 6y ago
> Honestly, after ignoring these two letters he was _begging_ the FAA to be made an example of. No. No. NO. A western government should not behave like Russia or China or other despotic states, EVER. It has to be fair to everyone, and "making an example out of someone" is definitely not fair.
- hh3k0 6y ago
  > Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. (Source: fbi.gov) What he did is comparable, imho.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    What aircraft did he interfere with? It will surely be visible on that aircraft's path. Let's see? In actual reality he didn't even attempt to interfere, not by choice nor by accident. There wasn't any other aircraft. Even supersonic aircraft can be seen early enough to land the drone.
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      > What aircraft did he interfere with? It will surely be visible on that aircraft's path. Let's see? In actual reality he didn't even attempt to interfere, not by choice nor by accident. He operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives: > "These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone." Every penny of his fine is well-deserved.
      - emteycz 6y ago
        What air traffic are you talking about? There was none. The thing about buildings is the only thing we could agree on. Who cares (except the bureaucrats) about losing control and signal when nothing could've happened?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by hh3k0 6y ago

Clubber 6y ago

How about a million dollar fine then? Is that excessive? Here's the text of the 8th amendment of the US Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

hh3k0 6y ago
It is not excessive, if one operates a drone recklessly with no regards for air traffic over a busy city… well, that behavior is endangering many. As far as I am concerned, he is no better than someone who tries to blind pilots with a laser pointer (and there's precedent for that): > Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. (Source: fbi.gov) Kudos to the FAA for nipping that in the bud.
- Clubber 6y ago
  How about speeding tickets then? Speeders certainly endanger many. Would you argue that a $182,000 speeding ticket isn't excessive either? If not, what's the differentiator in your opinion?
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    Honestly? If someone drives as recklessly as the fined has piloted his drone and in a similiar setting i.e. a busy city… yes, please. By all means, fine a multiple offender $182,000 for repeatedly endangering a great number of human lives.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    You can be arrested for reckless driving, spend time in jail, pay a fine, and lose your license.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    If you're able to endanger a comparable number of lives while driving, you're probably a bus driver who will receive more serious punishment for speeding than someone in their Honda Civic

curtainsforus 6y ago

Going from a warning to a sum most people would never be able to pay off seems pretty steep. Go in powers of 10, or something. 1k, 10k, 100k.

hh3k0 6y ago
It is my understanding that he received two warnings. Receiving two warnings before getting a fine is extremely lenient.
- bradlys 6y ago
  Would you say the same for someone getting two warnings and then getting a speeding ticket fine that was for $180k? For most people, that’s not payable in a lifetime.
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    If the speeding took place in a similar context (i.e. a busy city) and he repeatedly endangered a great number of human lives? Yes, I would say the same.
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  180000 dollars doesn't seem lenient to me. But really, I don't care if it's extremely lenient by some standard. I care what policy will best dissuade antisocial behaviour with the minimal necessary fines imposed. Clearly, in your view, a written warning from the FCC is obviously serious business, and if you got one you'd interpret it as such and immediately desist from whatever incited it. As this guy and the people disagreeing with you show, this attitude isn't universal. Two warnings and then immediate financial execution just seems insane. If the the first and second letters had come with 1000 and 10000 dollar fines attached, almost everyone would have stopped by the first, let alone the second. There, no need to turn people into lifelong indentured servants. (Of course, I imagine there's an incentive to maximize the amount of fines you collect, so that explains why it wouldn't happen that way.)
  - 6y ago

emteycz 6y ago

> Honestly, after ignoring these two letters he was _begging_ the FAA to be made an example of. No. No. NO. A western government should not behave like Russia or China or other despotic states, EVER. It has to be fair to everyone, and "making an example out of someone" is definitely not fair.

hh3k0 6y ago
> Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. (Source: fbi.gov) What he did is comparable, imho.
- emteycz 6y ago
  What aircraft did he interfere with? It will surely be visible on that aircraft's path. Let's see? In actual reality he didn't even attempt to interfere, not by choice nor by accident. There wasn't any other aircraft. Even supersonic aircraft can be seen early enough to land the drone.
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    > What aircraft did he interfere with? It will surely be visible on that aircraft's path. Let's see? In actual reality he didn't even attempt to interfere, not by choice nor by accident. He operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives: > "These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone." Every penny of his fine is well-deserved.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      What air traffic are you talking about? There was none. The thing about buildings is the only thing we could agree on. Who cares (except the bureaucrats) about losing control and signal when nothing could've happened?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]