5 ms·

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.)
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    > 180,000 dollars doesn't seem lenient to me. It is, though. He repeatedly operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives. Every penny of this fine is well-deserved.
    - curtainsforus 6y ago
      At what point would the fine be too much for you? A million? Ten million? Should we just kill him and get it over with? Or does it just matter that an authority said that's the fine that's warranted? If the FCC says it's 180k, 180k was just. If the FCC says 10k, 10k was just. If the FCC says a million, a million was just.
      - hh3k0 6y ago
        I think it's a reasonable fine, considering that he has endangered a great number of human lives. It is clear that he failed to understand the gravity of his recklessness prior to this fine, I am sure he understands now. All things considered, his punishment was more or less a slap on the wrist: > 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)
      - Sodman 6y ago
        I think the 180k fine is reasonable. As others have pointed out, the maximum fine (250k) is publicly available to look up, and was most likely also in the letters he received from the FCC. This didn't come out of nowhere. Think of it another way, imagine if the cops kept pulling you over for speeding. The first time you just got a warning, but they told you next time it'd be a $500 fine. Then you get caught again and they said "Ok we'll give you ONE more warning, but if you keep doing this, it's a $500 fine". Then the third time you get caught, when they give you a $350 fine you can't be all surprised pikachu at them. This guy knew the stakes (and was repeatedly reminded of them, by the enforcing body, who told him they would enforce the law if he didn't stop) and he kept on breaking the law anyway. They need to send a clear message that this is NOT acceptable behavior. This is closer to driving on the runway at an active airport than it is to an everyday traffic violation. In terms of the magnitude of the fine - he was putting people's lives in danger, which I think justifies the amount. You also have to keep in mind that drones are an expensive hobby, it's not uncommon for people to spend over $3k on drone equipment. Many popular drone pilots on instagram etc are incredibly wealthy and drive crazy sports cars and the like. They regularly fly $1000+ drones inches from water / through forests etc, and they can afford to lose a few of them. Put another way - if the normal response to breaking these laws was 2 warnings and a $10k fine over 2 years of publicly posting widely watched videos of yourself breaking the law, it wouldn't be enough to stop a lot of these people.
29083011397778 6y ago
Who's life would you say is worth less than $182,000?
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  I wasn't aware the FCC was going to use that money to buy malaria nets. Each life is worth a star, but the price of a life is far lower. I wasn't aware the purpose of government fines was bronze-age eye-for-an-eye-ism. But if it is, then I'd point out he didn't kill anyone.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    He didn't kill anyone this time. There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. In such a situation, it could easily cause a car accident, or crash through the window of a tall building, or worst-case scenario - which these laws are very much trying to prevent - it could end up in the engine of a plane coming in to land and endangering the hundreds of people on board. If this drone was urgently delivering an organ for a transplant across the city, and flown by a professional operator with clearance from local airspace authorities, as well as multiple redundant systems to prevent catastrophic failure - then it's definitely worth the risk. But obviously that's not the case here, this was an amateur playing with a toy in order to make a youtube video. As such, it should only be allowed in the lowest risk environments - like big empty fields far away from people and airports.
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      > There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. And he has _intentionally_ lost contact with his drone: > 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.

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.)
- hh3k0 6y ago
  > 180,000 dollars doesn't seem lenient to me. It is, though. He repeatedly operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives. Every penny of this fine is well-deserved.
  - curtainsforus 6y ago
    At what point would the fine be too much for you? A million? Ten million? Should we just kill him and get it over with? Or does it just matter that an authority said that's the fine that's warranted? If the FCC says it's 180k, 180k was just. If the FCC says 10k, 10k was just. If the FCC says a million, a million was just.
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      I think it's a reasonable fine, considering that he has endangered a great number of human lives. It is clear that he failed to understand the gravity of his recklessness prior to this fine, I am sure he understands now. All things considered, his punishment was more or less a slap on the wrist: > 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)
    - Sodman 6y ago
      I think the 180k fine is reasonable. As others have pointed out, the maximum fine (250k) is publicly available to look up, and was most likely also in the letters he received from the FCC. This didn't come out of nowhere. Think of it another way, imagine if the cops kept pulling you over for speeding. The first time you just got a warning, but they told you next time it'd be a $500 fine. Then you get caught again and they said "Ok we'll give you ONE more warning, but if you keep doing this, it's a $500 fine". Then the third time you get caught, when they give you a $350 fine you can't be all surprised pikachu at them. This guy knew the stakes (and was repeatedly reminded of them, by the enforcing body, who told him they would enforce the law if he didn't stop) and he kept on breaking the law anyway. They need to send a clear message that this is NOT acceptable behavior. This is closer to driving on the runway at an active airport than it is to an everyday traffic violation. In terms of the magnitude of the fine - he was putting people's lives in danger, which I think justifies the amount. You also have to keep in mind that drones are an expensive hobby, it's not uncommon for people to spend over $3k on drone equipment. Many popular drone pilots on instagram etc are incredibly wealthy and drive crazy sports cars and the like. They regularly fly $1000+ drones inches from water / through forests etc, and they can afford to lose a few of them. Put another way - if the normal response to breaking these laws was 2 warnings and a $10k fine over 2 years of publicly posting widely watched videos of yourself breaking the law, it wouldn't be enough to stop a lot of these people.

29083011397778 6y ago

Who's life would you say is worth less than $182,000?

curtainsforus 6y ago
I wasn't aware the FCC was going to use that money to buy malaria nets. Each life is worth a star, but the price of a life is far lower. I wasn't aware the purpose of government fines was bronze-age eye-for-an-eye-ism. But if it is, then I'd point out he didn't kill anyone.
- Sodman 6y ago
  He didn't kill anyone this time. There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. In such a situation, it could easily cause a car accident, or crash through the window of a tall building, or worst-case scenario - which these laws are very much trying to prevent - it could end up in the engine of a plane coming in to land and endangering the hundreds of people on board. If this drone was urgently delivering an organ for a transplant across the city, and flown by a professional operator with clearance from local airspace authorities, as well as multiple redundant systems to prevent catastrophic failure - then it's definitely worth the risk. But obviously that's not the case here, this was an amateur playing with a toy in order to make a youtube video. As such, it should only be allowed in the lowest risk environments - like big empty fields far away from people and airports.
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    > There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in. And he has _intentionally_ lost contact with his drone: > 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.