7 ms·

I assume law enforcement will be largely exempt from these rules, the US military certainly will be.

jMyles 12y ago
I can't imagine why you're being downvoted. This is the most important part of the discussion. We cannot abide a society in which the state claims domain over all the air. The FCC already does this in a sense with airwaves.
- cylinder 12y ago
  What? That's what government does. Government represents people and regulates what people can and cannot do with land, sky, water, oil, gas, each other, themselves, etc. Are you an anarchist?
  - jrockway 12y ago
    And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Regulation is not a bad thing. Sometimes long-term planning is required.
    - jMyles 12y ago
      > And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Why do you say this? When have I ever indicated this? If it is possible for a hotel to block RF that I want to transmit or receive, then obviously I have checked into the wrong hotel.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    > Are you an anarchist? I don't think it's quite that simple. I like simple, pragmatic solutions. Generally, yes, I think that the internet(s) will replace government, and I think that this situation is desirable. I'm concerned that the government will arm the skies and that the people on the ground will become targets. I think that's a reasonable concern. It makes more sense to me to ban weapons in the skies altogether. Whatever happens, I think it's important that there's one set of rules for everyone, whether they happen to be acting on behalf of the 'state' or not.
- untog 12y ago
  What exactly is the alternative to the state claiming domain over all the air? Everyone owns the air rights above their property? I'd love to see how those negotiations work out when you want to land a plane.
  - stevesearer 12y ago
    I'm curious at what point ones property line ends vertically both above and beneath ground level. People are able to build structures in both directions at great depths and elevations in the cases of mines and skyscrapers. Perhaps in the case of airplanes flying or building a subway system there is just some sort of easement or eminent domain ruling applied? If anyone has some resources on this topic, I'd be interested in reading them.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    I imagine that there will be an array of property arrangements. The important part, though, is that there's one set of rules that applies to everybody. Not "no weapons" unless you claim to be "the State" and then suddenly you can shoot pepper spray and TASER cartridges from the sky.
- panzagl 12y ago
  Wow, you'll really flip when you find out you find out about mineral and water rights.
wongarsu 12y ago
Law enforcement would certainly want their drones to be allowed to fly over crowds. But from a safety standpoint I don't see why they should be getting an exception. If the FAA judges that it's not possible for civilians to do this safely then it's certainly not easier for law enforcement. If law enforcement can do it safely, then there's no reason why civilians can't get the same certification.
- stevesearer 12y ago
  I've thought about this with regard to the way law enforcement are able to speed in their vehicles to catch up to vehicles which are breaking speeding laws. It would seem that if speeding is dangerous for civilians it would also be dangerous for law enforcement. Perhaps law enforcement are able to take additional driving safety courses which enable them to have improved skill at higher speeds. If this is the case, civilians ought to also have the ability to take such courses to improve their skill as well. Instead, I see the limitations on speeding meant to bring down the total number of fast moving vehicles. And in the same way, the total number of drones flying over crowds will be reduced by the FAA's rules, even if law enforcement are still able to fly them over crowds.
  - Retric 12y ago
    First off in many areas cops are limited the top seed allowed in a chase after all it’s hard to outrun a police radio. Second, a cop car / ambulance / fire truck with siren’s covered in flashing lights and with a siren blaring is far more conspicuous than a normal car which aids safety. Finally, top speeds are in part based around the lowest common denominator so a tired person with moderately reduced reflexes can still generally drive safely.
  - wongarsu 12y ago
    But there's a problem with that analogy: law enforcement is allowed to speed in order to catch up with speeding vehicles only because that reduces the total amount of vehicles speeding (which both sounds contradictory and should be obvious). Flying a drone over a crowd of people does nothing to reduce the number of drones flying over crowds. A better analogy would be that law enforcement is allowed to speed in order to reach the scene of a crime faster. One could argue that having a drone hover over a potential crime scene has similar benefits. I'm not sure about the costs and benefits in this case, but it's certainly a possible argument.

I can't imagine why you're being downvoted. This is the most important part of the discussion. We cannot abide a society in which the state claims domain over all the air. The FCC already does this in a sense with airwaves.

cylinder 12y ago
What? That's what government does. Government represents people and regulates what people can and cannot do with land, sky, water, oil, gas, each other, themselves, etc. Are you an anarchist?
- jrockway 12y ago
  And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Regulation is not a bad thing. Sometimes long-term planning is required.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    > And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Why do you say this? When have I ever indicated this? If it is possible for a hotel to block RF that I want to transmit or receive, then obviously I have checked into the wrong hotel.
- jMyles 12y ago
  > Are you an anarchist? I don't think it's quite that simple. I like simple, pragmatic solutions. Generally, yes, I think that the internet(s) will replace government, and I think that this situation is desirable. I'm concerned that the government will arm the skies and that the people on the ground will become targets. I think that's a reasonable concern. It makes more sense to me to ban weapons in the skies altogether. Whatever happens, I think it's important that there's one set of rules for everyone, whether they happen to be acting on behalf of the 'state' or not.
untog 12y ago
What exactly is the alternative to the state claiming domain over all the air? Everyone owns the air rights above their property? I'd love to see how those negotiations work out when you want to land a plane.
- stevesearer 12y ago
  I'm curious at what point ones property line ends vertically both above and beneath ground level. People are able to build structures in both directions at great depths and elevations in the cases of mines and skyscrapers. Perhaps in the case of airplanes flying or building a subway system there is just some sort of easement or eminent domain ruling applied? If anyone has some resources on this topic, I'd be interested in reading them.
- jMyles 12y ago
  I imagine that there will be an array of property arrangements. The important part, though, is that there's one set of rules that applies to everybody. Not "no weapons" unless you claim to be "the State" and then suddenly you can shoot pepper spray and TASER cartridges from the sky.
panzagl 12y ago
Wow, you'll really flip when you find out you find out about mineral and water rights.

wongarsu 12y ago

Law enforcement would certainly want their drones to be allowed to fly over crowds. But from a safety standpoint I don't see why they should be getting an exception. If the FAA judges that it's not possible for civilians to do this safely then it's certainly not easier for law enforcement. If law enforcement can do it safely, then there's no reason why civilians can't get the same certification.

stevesearer 12y ago
I've thought about this with regard to the way law enforcement are able to speed in their vehicles to catch up to vehicles which are breaking speeding laws. It would seem that if speeding is dangerous for civilians it would also be dangerous for law enforcement. Perhaps law enforcement are able to take additional driving safety courses which enable them to have improved skill at higher speeds. If this is the case, civilians ought to also have the ability to take such courses to improve their skill as well. Instead, I see the limitations on speeding meant to bring down the total number of fast moving vehicles. And in the same way, the total number of drones flying over crowds will be reduced by the FAA's rules, even if law enforcement are still able to fly them over crowds.
- Retric 12y ago
  First off in many areas cops are limited the top seed allowed in a chase after all it’s hard to outrun a police radio. Second, a cop car / ambulance / fire truck with siren’s covered in flashing lights and with a siren blaring is far more conspicuous than a normal car which aids safety. Finally, top speeds are in part based around the lowest common denominator so a tired person with moderately reduced reflexes can still generally drive safely.
- wongarsu 12y ago
  But there's a problem with that analogy: law enforcement is allowed to speed in order to catch up with speeding vehicles only because that reduces the total amount of vehicles speeding (which both sounds contradictory and should be obvious). Flying a drone over a crowd of people does nothing to reduce the number of drones flying over crowds. A better analogy would be that law enforcement is allowed to speed in order to reach the scene of a crime faster. One could argue that having a drone hover over a potential crime scene has similar benefits. I'm not sure about the costs and benefits in this case, but it's certainly a possible argument.