7 ms·

Drones With an Eye on the Public Cleared to Fly

63 points by pash 15y ago

pash 15y ago
Quick summary: A new [US] federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors — from selling real estate and dusting crops, to monitoring oil spills and wildlife, even shooting Hollywood films. Local police and emergency services will also be freer to send up their own drones. ... Under the new law, within 90 days, the F.A.A. must allow police and first responders to fly drones under 4.4 pounds, as long as they keep them under an altitude of 400 feet and meet other requirements. The agency must also allow for “the safe integration” of all kinds of drones into American airspace, including those for commercial uses, by Sept. 30, 2015. Most of the rest of the article is about privacy concerns.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ck2 15y ago
Well at least we'll be able to track the moves of every politician that voted for this and show their paths on Google maps someday - until they vote exclusions for themselves. Seriously, this is insanity. One day soon they'll be able to track someone from birth to death, in realtime.
- pash 15y ago
  Authorizing drones to fly in US airspace is hardly insanity. There are lots of commercial (and hobbyist) uses for drones, and I think it's great that there will soon be a way to pursue them legally. There are obvious concerns about the the use of drones by law enforcement, etc., but those can and should be dealt with separately. You don't control abusive surveillance by banning technologies, whether that be drones or cameras or microphones or GPS radios or whatever. You control abusive surveillance by banning particular uses of those technologies, particularly by the state.
  - ck2 15y ago
    In a decade when there is a google map for your entire year of travel that is public to the world, that you did not authorize but have no way to stop, we'll see how you feel about this. There is zero overhead to running 1000 drones over a city once they get the technology right. Neighbors will be spying on neighbors in every detail. Good luck closing the door on privacy once it's blasted open like this.
    - barefoot 15y ago
      This data is already being collected (anonymously) to some extent: http://www.skyhookwireless.com/location-intelligence/ http://www.skyhookwireless.com/location-intelligence/
  - tripzilch 15y ago
    Assuming that your law enforcement's usage of drones will be "dealt with separately" (quite an assumption if you ask me--they're already doing it), you can bet there'll be some loophole so they can gather data from commercial drones. If not by straight out hiring them, they will just subpoena for their data.
EwanG 15y ago
Personally, I am hoping someone will setup a service where I can "hitch" a ride. I can't get out to the National Parks as often as I would like, and I'd love to be able to see the birds' eye view from one of these doing an overfly.
klbarry 15y ago
This could add quite a bit to the economy, in my opinion. There's countless applications for these things.
jsiarto 15y ago
As someone who has been an RC enthusiast all his life and is just now getting into multi-rotor drones--I can say that this is a step in the right direction. Currently, the only legal way to operate drones in US airspace is a recreational activity (RC airplanes/helis). As soon as you try and operate in the commercial sphere you immediately come under the FAA UASs regulations which essentially limit the flight of drones to groups with COA (Certificate of Authority) and only government and university groups are being granter these waivers. As other have said, there are many many commercial/non-military uses for these things and we have to have someway to allow their regulated, legal use. Also, most of these drones (at least the ones I'm building) use open source hardware and software (OpenPilot, Arducopter (DIY Drones), etc) which can be monitored by the general public. I don't think it's quite time to put on the tin-foil hats with this--the FAA is just trying to make our airways safe and make sure aircraft that are carrying humans continue to do so safely.
- jsiarto 15y ago
  Here are some images of my current tricopter project: https://plus.google.com/b/112905414962865545354/112905414962865545354/posts/VoHJXzAvcij https://plus.google.com/b/112905414962865545354/112905414962...
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  Out of curiosity, what distinguishes a Drone from a hobbyist RC aircraft?
  - t413 15y ago
    Well the distinction is clear. Electronic control system? Wait. Onboard microprocessors like those sold by cypress? Wait..
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - danshapiro 15y ago
    In the RC world, drones are aircraft that can operate for periods of time without real time human input. In the "real" world, it's about whether the aircraft operates with pilot on board (traditional aircraft), within direct view of an operator (rc), or neither (drone)
nitrogen 15y ago
Note to anyone with a swimming pool: install a roof. Giving the capability of aerial surveillance to anyone who can afford a drone would mean the end of outdoor privacy, even in your own backyard, no matter how tall your fence is. Say goodbye to the sun.
- tomkinstinch 15y ago
  We used to own air rights on property (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos), until the era of commercial aviation. It's my understanding that in the US, planes today have to maintain a certain distance from people and structures (500 ft?). I wonder if you saw a drone 50 feet above your house if you would be in your right to, say, get out your slingshot and defend yourself. Even if the done weren't hostile, a drone helicopter could be dangerous if it runs out of energy and falls on your head.
  - barefoot 15y ago
    500 feet minimum from any person, place, or thing and 1,000 feet in densely populated areas. Although, 500 feet is not far at all. I've taken a friend up with a telephoto lens and a mid-range SLR and even at 1,000 feet there's not much privacy.
lacamu 15y ago
OK, I guess I wouldn't mind having dropped on my head a 4.4 pound drone traveling, hmm, approximately: sqrt(2gdistance) = Sqrt(232.3(400 feet)) = 160 f.p.s. with about 160 fps * 4.4lbs = 700 ft-lb of energy !!! Well, maybe not!
- bwarp 15y ago
  Please use metric. It's the 21st century now.
  - xxpor 15y ago
    A lot of engineering in the US (especially civil) still uses standard. Believe me, I would prefer metric because it makes calculations 100x easier, but there's a lot of legacy stuff out there.
    - tripzilch 15y ago
      "Standard"? Isn't it called "imperial"? It's not standard if there's only one industrialized country left in the world that uses it :)
      - bwarp 15y ago
        Indeed. Although here in the UK, I find it frustrating that whilst we use metric for literally everything, we use MPH and miles for distance. It's illogical. If I utter kilometers to anyone, they look at me funny. I spent 5 years training myself to unlearn imperial in about 1990.
        tripzilch 15y ago
        UK friend of mine told me he's a big fan of kilometers, "because you got more of them" :-D
      - xxpor 15y ago
        In engineering circles, it's called standard.
Nate75Sanders 15y ago
Can my drone shoot down your drone if yours invades my airspace? What about if I deem your drone a nuisance/pest (in my airspace) and shoot it down?
- xxpor 15y ago
  I don't see why you would. Can you shoot a car that invades your space?
  - MSexton 15y ago
    Drones wouldn't have people in them.
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  Don't know about Air-to-Air shootdowns, but Ground-to-Air shootdowns already happening: http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down...
- pash 15y ago
  Serious reply to an unserious question: In the common law tradition, land owners' property rights extended literally "to the heavens" [0]. Overflying someone's property (in a balloon, say) was legally a trespass. But in the United States land-owners' air rights were progressively diminished by the courts in deference to practical considerations as civil aviation developed in the first half of the last century. In 1946, in a ruling that is the basis of current law, the Supreme Court decided that a land-owner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface." [1] Rights to the rest of the country's airspace appertain to the federal government. So if your nemesis sends a drone into the space immediately over your property, you would likely have the same rights to respond as if he had sent a land-lubbing robot onto it. (Courts have ruled that a crane overhanging one's property constitutes a trespass, for instance.) Generally you would be able to seek an injunction against continued trespass and/or sue for damages under various torts (interference, nuisance, etc.). You probably would not have the right to shoot down the drone, unless perhaps you have reason to believe that the drone might do you serious harm and you are in a jurisdiction where some form of the Castle doctrine [2] applies. Rights to airspace, and how they've changed over the years, are a great illustration of how property rights are not at all static but are continually rejiggered to fit the times. (Perhaps we can expect more tweaks as drones become common?) Michael Heller's book Gridlock Economy [3] has an interesting chapter on how rights to airspace have been adapted to allow for civil aviation. If you're super interested, there is at least one full-length book [4] (which I haven't read) on the history of the legal concept of airspace in the United States. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_... 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine 3. http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Economy-Ownership-Markets-Innovation/dp/0465029167 http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Economy-Ownership-Markets-Inn... 4. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-Airspace/dp/0674030826 http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-Airspace/dp/0674...
bwarp 15y ago
Good job you lucky guys in the US can sit in the back yard with a 12 gauge! I wonder how many hours it's going to be before someone shoots one.
- bwarp 15y ago
  I hate replying to my own post, but it's done already! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1329576173 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1329576173
damncabbage 15y ago
Drone proponents say the privacy concerns are overblown. Randy McDaniel, chief deputy of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department in Conroe, Tex., near Houston, whose agency bought a drone to use for various law enforcement operations, dismissed worries about surveillance, saying everyone everywhere can be photographed with cellphone cameras anyway. “We don’t spy on people,” he said. “We worry about criminal elements.” The density of the double-speak in this paragraph is breathtaking.

63 points by pash 15y ago

pash 15y ago

Quick summary: A new [US] federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors — from selling real estate and dusting crops, to monitoring oil spills and wildlife, even shooting Hollywood films. Local police and emergency services will also be freer to send up their own drones. ... Under the new law, within 90 days, the F.A.A. must allow police and first responders to fly drones under 4.4 pounds, as long as they keep them under an altitude of 400 feet and meet other requirements. The agency must also allow for “the safe integration” of all kinds of drones into American airspace, including those for commercial uses, by Sept. 30, 2015. Most of the rest of the article is about privacy concerns.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ck2 15y ago

Well at least we'll be able to track the moves of every politician that voted for this and show their paths on Google maps someday - until they vote exclusions for themselves. Seriously, this is insanity. One day soon they'll be able to track someone from birth to death, in realtime.

pash 15y ago
Authorizing drones to fly in US airspace is hardly insanity. There are lots of commercial (and hobbyist) uses for drones, and I think it's great that there will soon be a way to pursue them legally. There are obvious concerns about the the use of drones by law enforcement, etc., but those can and should be dealt with separately. You don't control abusive surveillance by banning technologies, whether that be drones or cameras or microphones or GPS radios or whatever. You control abusive surveillance by banning particular uses of those technologies, particularly by the state.
- ck2 15y ago
  In a decade when there is a google map for your entire year of travel that is public to the world, that you did not authorize but have no way to stop, we'll see how you feel about this. There is zero overhead to running 1000 drones over a city once they get the technology right. Neighbors will be spying on neighbors in every detail. Good luck closing the door on privacy once it's blasted open like this.
  - barefoot 15y ago
    This data is already being collected (anonymously) to some extent: http://www.skyhookwireless.com/location-intelligence/ http://www.skyhookwireless.com/location-intelligence/
- tripzilch 15y ago
  Assuming that your law enforcement's usage of drones will be "dealt with separately" (quite an assumption if you ask me--they're already doing it), you can bet there'll be some loophole so they can gather data from commercial drones. If not by straight out hiring them, they will just subpoena for their data.

EwanG 15y ago

Personally, I am hoping someone will setup a service where I can "hitch" a ride. I can't get out to the National Parks as often as I would like, and I'd love to be able to see the birds' eye view from one of these doing an overfly.

klbarry 15y ago

This could add quite a bit to the economy, in my opinion. There's countless applications for these things.

jsiarto 15y ago

As someone who has been an RC enthusiast all his life and is just now getting into multi-rotor drones--I can say that this is a step in the right direction. Currently, the only legal way to operate drones in US airspace is a recreational activity (RC airplanes/helis). As soon as you try and operate in the commercial sphere you immediately come under the FAA UASs regulations which essentially limit the flight of drones to groups with COA (Certificate of Authority) and only government and university groups are being granter these waivers. As other have said, there are many many commercial/non-military uses for these things and we have to have someway to allow their regulated, legal use. Also, most of these drones (at least the ones I'm building) use open source hardware and software (OpenPilot, Arducopter (DIY Drones), etc) which can be monitored by the general public. I don't think it's quite time to put on the tin-foil hats with this--the FAA is just trying to make our airways safe and make sure aircraft that are carrying humans continue to do so safely.

jsiarto 15y ago
Here are some images of my current tricopter project: https://plus.google.com/b/112905414962865545354/112905414962865545354/posts/VoHJXzAvcij https://plus.google.com/b/112905414962865545354/112905414962...
SkyMarshal 15y ago
Out of curiosity, what distinguishes a Drone from a hobbyist RC aircraft?
- t413 15y ago
  Well the distinction is clear. Electronic control system? Wait. Onboard microprocessors like those sold by cypress? Wait..
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- danshapiro 15y ago
  In the RC world, drones are aircraft that can operate for periods of time without real time human input. In the "real" world, it's about whether the aircraft operates with pilot on board (traditional aircraft), within direct view of an operator (rc), or neither (drone)

nitrogen 15y ago

Note to anyone with a swimming pool: install a roof. Giving the capability of aerial surveillance to anyone who can afford a drone would mean the end of outdoor privacy, even in your own backyard, no matter how tall your fence is. Say goodbye to the sun.

tomkinstinch 15y ago
We used to own air rights on property (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos), until the era of commercial aviation. It's my understanding that in the US, planes today have to maintain a certain distance from people and structures (500 ft?). I wonder if you saw a drone 50 feet above your house if you would be in your right to, say, get out your slingshot and defend yourself. Even if the done weren't hostile, a drone helicopter could be dangerous if it runs out of energy and falls on your head.
- barefoot 15y ago
  500 feet minimum from any person, place, or thing and 1,000 feet in densely populated areas. Although, 500 feet is not far at all. I've taken a friend up with a telephoto lens and a mid-range SLR and even at 1,000 feet there's not much privacy.

lacamu 15y ago

OK, I guess I wouldn't mind having dropped on my head a 4.4 pound drone traveling, hmm, approximately: sqrt(2gdistance) = Sqrt(232.3(400 feet)) = 160 f.p.s. with about 160 fps * 4.4lbs = 700 ft-lb of energy !!! Well, maybe not!

bwarp 15y ago
Please use metric. It's the 21st century now.
- xxpor 15y ago
  A lot of engineering in the US (especially civil) still uses standard. Believe me, I would prefer metric because it makes calculations 100x easier, but there's a lot of legacy stuff out there.
  - tripzilch 15y ago
    "Standard"? Isn't it called "imperial"? It's not standard if there's only one industrialized country left in the world that uses it :)
    - bwarp 15y ago
      Indeed. Although here in the UK, I find it frustrating that whilst we use metric for literally everything, we use MPH and miles for distance. It's illogical. If I utter kilometers to anyone, they look at me funny. I spent 5 years training myself to unlearn imperial in about 1990.
      - tripzilch 15y ago
        UK friend of mine told me he's a big fan of kilometers, "because you got more of them" :-D
    - xxpor 15y ago
      In engineering circles, it's called standard.

Nate75Sanders 15y ago

Can my drone shoot down your drone if yours invades my airspace? What about if I deem your drone a nuisance/pest (in my airspace) and shoot it down?

xxpor 15y ago
I don't see why you would. Can you shoot a car that invades your space?
- MSexton 15y ago
  Drones wouldn't have people in them.
SkyMarshal 15y ago
Don't know about Air-to-Air shootdowns, but Ground-to-Air shootdowns already happening: http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down...
pash 15y ago
Serious reply to an unserious question: In the common law tradition, land owners' property rights extended literally "to the heavens" [0]. Overflying someone's property (in a balloon, say) was legally a trespass. But in the United States land-owners' air rights were progressively diminished by the courts in deference to practical considerations as civil aviation developed in the first half of the last century. In 1946, in a ruling that is the basis of current law, the Supreme Court decided that a land-owner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface." [1] Rights to the rest of the country's airspace appertain to the federal government. So if your nemesis sends a drone into the space immediately over your property, you would likely have the same rights to respond as if he had sent a land-lubbing robot onto it. (Courts have ruled that a crane overhanging one's property constitutes a trespass, for instance.) Generally you would be able to seek an injunction against continued trespass and/or sue for damages under various torts (interference, nuisance, etc.). You probably would not have the right to shoot down the drone, unless perhaps you have reason to believe that the drone might do you serious harm and you are in a jurisdiction where some form of the Castle doctrine [2] applies. Rights to airspace, and how they've changed over the years, are a great illustration of how property rights are not at all static but are continually rejiggered to fit the times. (Perhaps we can expect more tweaks as drones become common?) Michael Heller's book Gridlock Economy [3] has an interesting chapter on how rights to airspace have been adapted to allow for civil aviation. If you're super interested, there is at least one full-length book [4] (which I haven't read) on the history of the legal concept of airspace in the United States. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_... 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine 3. http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Economy-Ownership-Markets-Innovation/dp/0465029167 http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Economy-Ownership-Markets-Inn... 4. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-Airspace/dp/0674030826 http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-Airspace/dp/0674...

bwarp 15y ago

Good job you lucky guys in the US can sit in the back yard with a 12 gauge! I wonder how many hours it's going to be before someone shoots one.

bwarp 15y ago
I hate replying to my own post, but it's done already! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1329576173 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1329576173

damncabbage 15y ago

Drone proponents say the privacy concerns are overblown. Randy McDaniel, chief deputy of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department in Conroe, Tex., near Houston, whose agency bought a drone to use for various law enforcement operations, dismissed worries about surveillance, saying everyone everywhere can be photographed with cellphone cameras anyway. “We don’t spy on people,” he said. “We worry about criminal elements.” The density of the double-speak in this paragraph is breathtaking.