4 ms·

I was about to have a knee-jerk reaction to this, but I just realized I may misunderstand what the rules actually allow. My worst-case scenario, perhaps totall

I was about to have a knee-jerk reaction to this, but I just realized I may misunderstand what the rules actually allow. My worst-case scenario, perhaps totally unrealistic, is that this allows a drone with a camera to hover over my property, peeping in through the windows. Are there any current / upcoming rules that prevent that?

crooked-v 6y ago
The article is extremely vague, but from what I understand the rule it's referring to is literally just an (often-ignored) prohibition from flying above people, at any height, that was put in place to at least theoretically reduce the danger of drone crashes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
coder543 6y ago
Many states have laws that specifically prohibit the intentional use of a drone for surveillance of someone else on their personal property. This announcement isn’t at all related your concerns, and changes (essentially?) nothing there whatsoever.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Almost all state and local drone laws are invalid in the United States. Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation and there is specific preemption in the federal code. The FAA's stance is that voyeurism is a crime, and the use of a drone is irrelevant.
bosswipe 6y ago
Everyone on HN is cheering the relaxation of these rules but I'm angry because of concerns similar to yours. I'm now of the mind of "if you can't fight them join them", I want regulation-free counter-attack drones that destroy any drones that approach my property. But I'm really afraid that this robot vs robot future that we keep rushing towards is not one that we should be creating.
- dannyw 6y ago
  Laws and regulations revolve. When bad things happen, regulations will change. When bad things don’t happen and there is public utility in allowing more things, regulations will eventually change.
Accujack 6y ago
There are existing laws that make that illegal/an invasion of privacy. There's no need to make a law about drones doing it, especially since it would be mostly unenforceable.

crooked-v 6y ago

The article is extremely vague, but from what I understand the rule it's referring to is literally just an (often-ignored) prohibition from flying above people, at any height, that was put in place to at least theoretically reduce the danger of drone crashes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

coder543 6y ago

Many states have laws that specifically prohibit the intentional use of a drone for surveillance of someone else on their personal property. This announcement isn’t at all related your concerns, and changes (essentially?) nothing there whatsoever.

mike_d 6y ago
Almost all state and local drone laws are invalid in the United States. Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation and there is specific preemption in the federal code. The FAA's stance is that voyeurism is a crime, and the use of a drone is irrelevant.

bosswipe 6y ago

Everyone on HN is cheering the relaxation of these rules but I'm angry because of concerns similar to yours. I'm now of the mind of "if you can't fight them join them", I want regulation-free counter-attack drones that destroy any drones that approach my property. But I'm really afraid that this robot vs robot future that we keep rushing towards is not one that we should be creating.

dannyw 6y ago
Laws and regulations revolve. When bad things happen, regulations will change. When bad things don’t happen and there is public utility in allowing more things, regulations will eventually change.

Accujack 6y ago

There are existing laws that make that illegal/an invasion of privacy. There's no need to make a law about drones doing it, especially since it would be mostly unenforceable.