This story doesn't do a good job of explaining exactly how the drones are helping anyone in particular do anything in particular. "So yeah, it seems like that

This story doesn't do a good job of explaining exactly how the drones are helping anyone in particular do anything in particular. "So yeah, it seems like that would be kind of handy to have..." Well, yes, it does seem that way. Is it? Has it been? It may be the case that gathering information is easier than putting that information to use, particularly if the organization that receives the information isn't designed, trained, or otherwise set up to act on (from the organization's point of view) random inputs like this. It may also be the case that having lots of pictures of a raging river is actually a lot less useful than you'd at first suppose. You may be able to see that flooding has inundated a neighborhood, but it may be a lot harder to tell if the residents are safe or if they're in trouble, how many are in trouble, and what you could possibly do for them. I think FEMA's threat that certain volunteer efforts would be met with arrest is unnecessary, mean-spirited, and tone-deaf. And according to the story, it didn't work, anyway. But the vibe I'm seeing here - "OF COURSE the drones would be helpful" - seems to be more or less faith-based. I'd guess a drone that would be super useful would be one that hauled a temporary cell site over a dead zone. People in trouble could just call for help directly. That would skip over quite a bit of slow photo interpretation, sticky judgement calls (where do we fly the surveillance drone next?) and other guesswork. That would create a network of human brains to tackle the problem together, using tools and techniques that are familiar to everyone.