White House Seeks More Power To Counter Use of Drones In US
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/04/25/2044238/white-house-seeks-more-power-to-counter-use-of-drones-in-us
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
White House Seeks More Power To Counter Use of Drones In US
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid
freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe
offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated
The federal-government-wide focus comes as the Federal Aviation Administration projects that more than 2 million drones will be in circulation in the U.S. by 2024 and as availability of detection and mitigation technologies -- including jamming systems -- are limited under current law. The White House plan calls for expanding existing counter-drone authorities for the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, Energy, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency and NASA in limited situations. The proposal also seeks to expand drone detection authorities for state, local, territorial and tribal law enforcement agencies and critical infrastructure owners and operators. The proposal also calls for establishing a six-year pilot program for a small number of state, local, territorial and tribal law enforcement agencies to take part in a drone detection and mitigation operations under supervision of the Justice Department and Homeland Security. Currently, no state or local agencies have such authorization.
-
›
I don't like the idea that the government has to step in on this and enforce it but it's pretty clear that people can't be trusted with this type of thing to self regulate. Back when this was only the realm of RC planes, copters and scale rockets there is a good sense of community there and designated spaces and that community has had to adapt to the proper rules so there is a good sense of discipline amongst a group of enthusiasts
Now that anyone can go to Best Buy, order up a set of flying saw blades and operate it with close to zero skill or training they were bound to ruin it for the rest of us.
-
This. If drone enthusiasts were better at self-policing from the beginning, we wouldn't have this now, would we? But I clearly remember drones flying into wildfires and interfering with firefighting operations, and morons flying drones in restricted areas like airports, and sickies using drones to spy on their neighbors kids. They ruined it for everyone.
-
How can drone enthusiasts "police" bad actors?
These bad actors aren't part of the "drone enthusiast" community so how would we even know who they were or where they were operating?
The FAA initially told the hobbyists "You need to register with the government, that will mitigate the risk of bad actors using these craft inappropriately"
Then they said "Oh gosh, we got that wrong, now you'll have to fit remote ID technology to your craft, *that* will do the trick"
And now they're effectively saying "We (the government/FAA) actually have no idea what we're talking about because clearly neither of those two options have had an effect so we're going to come up with more (equally useless) rules to burden you with, even though we probably know that they'll be as ineffective as the ones we've foisted on you already".
Idiots.
-
Well to be fair this is uncharted territory. With RC planes there was a skill and commitment floor to the hobby. You had to put in some effort and therefore were more likely to seek out groups and learn the rules.
The idea of anyone having access to aircraft with cameras that can fly themselves is an interesting problem. The atom bomb of regulation is requiring a license to purchase, own and operate said vehichles, similar to how the FCC restricts and enforces regulation around amatuer radio. I don't thi
-
"What can the enthusiast community can do is probably offer alternatives to the FAA that can help mitigate the problems we are seeing without taking such a draconian action"
This has already been done. The community is *very* active at providing the FAA with feedback and ideas -- unfortunately, the decisions appear to have already been made and although there is a legal requirement for the FAA to consult with the community -- there is no requirement for them to actually listen to what is being said.
A recent
-
I think thats a good idea but the only possible way to enforce that is to have some type of licensing that says "These people can be excepted from the rules because they are proven to be competent".
Seems like beacons or licensure are the only two reasonable, enforcable solutions. The FAA isn't going to take "no solution" as the answer, that time has passed.
-
-
-
Meanwhile anyone could just buy the parts and use an open source flight controller to remove any legal restrictions and fly where ever they want. It might stop some kids goofing off but anyone with some determination can still go about doing whatever illegal or immoral behavior they wish with their drone.
-
-
Make it legal to shoot them down when they hover over your yard. My yard up to 200ft is still my yard. Problem solved. Kids will become slingshot experts. Slingshot and airgun industry makes revenue. Win win.
-
-
-
-
-
I love that you respond to him, I often scroll past the long post just to see what comeback was posted below.
You make them worth it
-
-
-
What a load of bullshirt!
We've already seen from the recent coverage of the war in Ukraine that bad actors or enemy states can get all the hi-res images they want from orbit.
The US government's paranoia is now overwhelming and is warping its sense of justice and perverting its behavior to an unacceptable extent.
Looks as if one of the world's safest hobbies will once again be burdened with even great levels of over-regulation as a result of this stupidity. Not one person, anywhere, at any time in the histo
-
Satellites can't spy on you through your window, or loiter for hours watching your movements, or shoot a rocket at you from a few thousand feet away.
The legislation isn't aimed at hobbyists flying quadcopters, and drones can definitely be used maliciously.
-
Recreational drones can't do any of the stuff you talk about either -- but you can bet your bottom dollar that these new regulations will be applied to those craft.
Hey, I'm the guy who built his own DIY cruise-missile in a garage in rural New Zealand 20 years ago as a proof of concept (and got into a shit-load of trouble with the US government as a result). At that stage they tried to cover up the vulnerability that rogue drones might represent to the US national security.
Now, when they don't actually pres
-
I would like to hear more information about this garage cruise missile and how the US had anything to say about what you were doing in New Zealand?
Do tell...
-
Some links for you:
A DIY cruise missile: yours for £3,000 [theguardian.com]
And some comments from a former US defense official in this TV documentary about the incident:
part 1 [youtube.com]
part 2 [youtube.com]The US government is so far behind that it's simply not funny and now they have allowed paranoia to overwhelm their commonsense.
-
-
"you can bet your bottom dollar that these new regulations will be applied to those craft"
From the article;
"standards for legal and illegal uses of drones, and bolster cooperation with other countries on counter-drone technologies."That sounds entirely reasonable to me, and recreational drones can definitely be used for abuse which should be regulated.
-
"and recreational drones can definitely be used for abuse which should be regulated"
Hey, pressure cookers were converted to bombs that killed 3 people and injured 280 in the Boston Bombing.
Recreational multirotor drones have never killed anyone in the USA.
So tell me again why you think we should FURTHER regulate something that has been proven safe over more than a decade but not regulate something that has been proven to be lethal in the hands of a bad actor.
And the reality is that drones *are* regulated b
-
"Recreational multirotor drones have never killed anyone in the USA."
Obvious strawman, nobody said they have.
-
"Obvious strawman, nobody said they have."
Then why the need for MORE regulation?-
"standards for legal and illegal uses of drones, and bolster cooperation with other countries on counter-drone technologies."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ah drones as part of the second amendment. Right to bear drones. Now we can overthrow properly.
-
"Ah drones as part of the second amendment"
All of my drones have bare arms -- they're not covered at all. The 2nd ammendment says there is a right to bare arms -- if not, teeshirts might be illegal too!:-)
-
-
-
If I were a nasty-minded, evil person intent on creating havoc, I wouldn't necessarily use flying drones. Something programmed to move on the ground, at night until it reached the area of its intended target, when it would radically change its behaviour, might be a lot more difficult to defend against. And no doubt that would lead to even more stringent regulations.
If you thought 3D printed guns were bad, imagine something that could creep around literally "under the radar" carrying a five pound payload of...well, anything, really. Now imagine a few hundred of them.
-
Robodogs. Now if you really wanted to be sneaky make them look like a children's toy [wikipedia.org], and then unleash mayhem.
-
A smartphone is a robot. There are lots of platforms that can be programmed to do bad things. Even if you jam radio signals, devices can continue to operate autonomously. We have had a hard time preventing people from doing bad things, keeping people from doing bad things anonymously via pre-programmed devices seems almost impossible. It's like trying to halt a meme on Reddit or twitter. It would be better to give people less reason to want to do bad things. There are obvious problems with this propos
-
Words on a piece paper, that'll fix it. Whenever has this stopped a bad guy with bad intentions? Guns, drugs, assaults, etc.
-
-
It is clear that countermeasures are needed, the war in the Ukraine is evidence of that. The proliferation of drones that are both inexpensive and require little or no skill to operate means very low barriers to entry for F-ing up a lot of stuff with very little risk of getting caught. So far I have not see much in the way of that happening here in the USA but it would be easy for anarchists or terrorists (domestic or otherwise) to do a lot of things I will not go into here. Simply regulating drones will no
-
It is clear that countermeasures are needed
Countermeasures to what????
Please provide any documentary evidence that a drone has been used to steal state secrets or compromise the security of any critical infrastructure in the USA.
Bureaucrats and politicians are good at hyping up risk so as to justify their own existance and to justify over-regulation plus wholy disproportionate spending.
Before we start infringing the freedoms of innocent people, how about we prove that the risk is actually something other th
-
Just how lazy are you? Couldn't be bothered to Google "Drone disrupts" before posting? If you do you will get stories about multiple events, many intentional and some probably accidental issues caused by drones flying where they shouldn't be. But this isn't about you. This is about people with enough imagination to realize they can get to four by adding two and two. I am definitely NOT going to describe the other things someone with average intelligence could do with a cheap drone to cause more serious issu
-
Again.. these are utterly ridiculous knee-jerk reactions to *perceived* threats.
Show me where someone flying a drone where they shouldn't has caused any significant damage, injury or death?
The hysteria surrounding the "danger" of drones is wildly over-stated and not supported by the evidence accumulated over the past 10 years.
Then there are the false-flag incidents such as the alleged appearance of drones at Gatwick Airport a few years ago. Investigations are proving that there were no drones and that thi
-
-
-
Do you suspect that the United States is preparing to attack its own people? Why does it need countermeasures against hobby drones?
-
You obviously didn't read or didn't understand my post. Go back, read it again, then maybe you can come up with a rational response.
-
-
-
I think there should be (and maybe already is) a focus on detecting drones that may be acting maliciously and developing similarly inexpensive tech to take them out. And it isn't just drones that perform surveillance. The US is deploying suicide drones that can loiter around looking for targets of value, other countries must have them as well. There is talk of drone swarms that would be very hard to counter.
-
-
Nobody claimed "there are foreign nations just lining up to launch attacks on US soil", why did you make that up? And nobody said "there is any credible risk from recreational drones" either.
-
-
-
"mitigation technologies -- including jamming systems -- are limited under current law"
Perfect idea. (My filling in gaps) At all airports, jam the control signal and GPS so drones can't fly pre-programmed flight paths. No one solves problems like the US government!
Whatever bureaucrat initially thought to limit jamming systems obviously didn't have have the foresight of the Biden administration.
-
"At all airports, jam the control signal and GPS so drones can't fly pre-programmed flight paths."
Yeah, because it's not like aircraft use GPS for navigation eh?:-D
-
-
A pervy guy who lived down the block from my ex-girlfriend in Nampa, Idaho bought one of these. It went down like this.
He started watching my ex and her sister sunbathing in back yard. In bathing suits, not nude.
They approached him the next day. He stated that there wasn't a thing they could do about it.
Next time they called the cops. He was cited under a nuisance ordinance similar to play loud music.
Next time they called the cops, he was cited and they took his toy.
He bought another one.
My-
" I shot his perv-copter out of he sky with a semi-automatic paintball gun and frozen paintballs"
You do realise that you commited a federal offense by shooting at an aircraft... right?
Yep, that's how badly the government has screwed up the regulations. They've defined "drones" as "aircraft" now and it is a federal offense to endanger any aircraft.
You should think yourself lucky that the cops (like most of the public) weren't aware of that or they'd have hauled you both off to jail.
The whole area of drone a
-
I'm calling the cops the next time my big brother smashes my paper airplane. Politician and lobbyists rarely fully understand what the problem is and even less what the impact of their "solution" is. The fiasco of all pools and spas having to replace their drains and also install a secondary drain too because a single child of a congressman died is absolutely over reacting & we had to pay the financial costs!
-
While my ex resided in the outskirts of Nampa, she was in fact within Ada county.
Ada County Ordinance No. 883// 2018
This ordinance requires anyone flying a drone, regardless of the drone’s weight or intended use, in Ada County to register their drone with the FAA. The ordinance also states that drones should not be operated in a way that would cause damage to people or property, nor should drones be used for the purpose of capturing a person’s visual image, audio recording, or other physi -
Except that I only have one eye and, by buzzing me, he assaulted me with a weapon able to commit great bodily harm. Straight from the arrest report.
Felony in every state,
You are splitting hairs. Any pervy-ness skeletons in your closet. Or are you just wishing?
-
-
You're lucky. Shooting anything at any aircraft is a felony in the US. Glad the police had some common sense and didn't pursue anything.
-
Is this the only way to spend your free time in Nampa, Idaho?
-
-
I can guarantee no drug drones will be stopped, instead drones flown for fun will be stopped. That's what usually happens, the low hanging fruit gets shafted while the ones causing actual harm get away.
-
The U.S has seen what Ukrainians were able to do with Russian tanks and they don't want U.S civilians to be able to do that if things go sour. The timing says it all.
Taking away drones that can be armed that way is simply removing the possibility that tank assets would be rendered ineffective against armed U.S civilians.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK