U.S. Announces Task Force to Develop Drone Registry

[Ozarker]

Requiring a transponder as part of licensing will knock out the current models, so that isn't a real problem. It doesn't matter if people make them from spare parts or not, if they fly without an active and registered transponder, they get brought down.

I have some that have a total all-up mass of one ounce. Think that could carry a transponder?

And don't forget, there is existing law against that.

Current laws can be changed, so that isn't a problem either.

You don't think getting new laws through Congress is a problem right now?

Drone operation was not enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers.

That's a matter of debate.

I disagree with them not being a threat.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it's wrong.

If there are millions of them being flown, it is only a matter of time before damage to property or persons happen.

At any one moment, around 1-10 billion birds are in the air over the US. Most consumer drones are flown a few minutes a year, and maybe there will be a million of them at the end of this year.

And the implications of abuse with respect to invasion of privacy are enormous.

They're zero, actually. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when visible from any legal location in the national airspace, according to existing Supreme Court precedent. That's why Google can take those high res pictures from airplanes and put them on the web.

My pocket hyperzoom and my binoculars are a far greater threat to privacy than a R/C quadcopter with a 17mm-equivalent lens on board, like a DJI Phantom.

I think it is just a matter of time before drones are heavily regulated. They may make an exception grandfathering single propeller devices, but the multicopter ones have to go.

Why? Anything I can do with a quadcopter I can do better with a regular helicopter - they're much more efficient.

I agree Lee Jay.

 

[cayenne]

<snip>
Current laws can be changed, so that isn't a problem either. Drone operation was not enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers.
<snip>

Just a slight point of clarity. Remember, the US Constitution does NOT grant rights and privileges to the people, it is there to enumerate a limited number of rights and responsibilities for the federal govt....with everything else being reserved to the states and the people.

So, of course the constitution doesn't enshrine drone flying to the people, it doesn't enshrine anything as far as rights to the people. Basically most anything is legal until laws are passed limiting actions or making them illegal. Often confusions comes from the Bill of Rights amendments. There was a lot of controversy back then, in that the founding fathers didn't want it to appear at all that the Constitution granted rights...the compromise was made basically to say the BOR didn't grant rights so much as emphasized those special rights...etc.

A little confusing sure, but for most arguments sake, remember that the US Constitution does not and never GRANTS rights to people...they are all God given.

That's my $0.02,

cayenne

 

[Ozarker]

<snip>
Current laws can be changed, so that isn't a problem either. Drone operation was not enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers.
<snip>

Just a slight point of clarity. Remember, the US Constitution does NOT grant rights and privileges to the people, it is there to enumerate a limited number of rights and responsibilities for the federal govt....with everything else being reserved to the states and the people.

So, of course the constitution doesn't enshrine drone flying to the people, it doesn't enshrine anything as far as rights to the people. Basically most anything is legal until laws are passed limiting actions or making them illegal. Often confusions comes from the Bill of Rights amendments. There was a lot of controversy back then, in that the founding fathers didn't want it to appear at all that the Constitution granted rights...the compromise was made basically to say the BOR didn't grant rights so much as emphasized those special rights...etc.

A little confusing sure, but for most arguments sake, remember that the US Constitution does not and never GRANTS rights to people...they are all God given.

That's my $0.02,

cayenne

Yes! Right on the money. Our rights are ours simply because we are human. No man or government granted them or can take them away. The Constitution constrains government. It doesn't make government our ruler or our better.

 

[Lee Jay]

FAA regulations are just as good as laws and are passed by the agency all the time. This won't go through the Congress.

Has to.

Existing law:

"...the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate
any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being
developed as a model aircraft, if--
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;"...and so on.

In other words, the FAA is in violation of the existing law if they promulgate a new rule regarding recreational use of model aircraft.

 

[Don Haines]

The airport where I live uses drones to chase away geese from the property.......