Private drones are a growing menace

[shira]

This Washington Post article is just the beginning, I fear. I fully expect that sometime in the next two years a commercial airliner will crash - and hundreds will died - because of a private drone flown by an irresponsible owner. To me, it's utterly predictable.

I also predict that - increasingly - private drones will violate the privacy of individuals. Irresponsible owners will hover their drones near the windows of private residences, and make HD videos with sound. I can only imagine the fallout when private actions and conversations - from inside people's homes, increasingly appear on the web because of drones. Man hits wife or child; woman makes racist or other irresponsible comment. Use your imagination. Suddenly, all-too-human actions become public knowledge. And then careers are ruined; people become public pariahs; lives are destroyed.

It's one thing for people to expect their actions and conversations to not be fully private when they're in public; but it's another thing entirely when we can no longer expect privacy inside our own homes or the homes of our friends and acquaintances. It WILL happen. It will happen more more.

I think drones are a menace. I think the laws need to be changed: If a drone is flown over private property, the property owner should be able to destroy that drone (without endangering the public) without any other justification. Using a drone to violate another's privacy should be a felony, with severe criminal penalties. Parents should be held fully responsible for the their minor children's actions with drones. Also - and very importantly - every drone sold should be required to be covered by an insurance liability policy with high limit (say $10 million), for both actual and punitive damages, so that those harassed by drones have recourse. That insurance should be included in the purchase price.

I'm not even getting into drones used by terrorists here. That's another issue entirely, and perhaps even more scary. But if people insist on using drones, they must be held accountable for their actions and the aggregate actions of all those pursuing the hobby.

 

[Genx87]

I think we should extend your idea to the state powered drones as well.

btw this is complete bullshit.

“Cars were torched on the freeways because drones made aerial firefighting efforts impossible,” state Sen. Ted Gaines (R-El Dorado), a sponsor of the measure, said in a statement. “This is maddening and I can’t believe that hobby drones are risking people’s lives to get videos on YouTube.”

Cars were torched because they closed the highway on two ends trapping the cars.

 

[Paratus]

This Washington Post article is just the beginning, I fear. I fully expect that sometime in the next two years a commercial airliner will crash - and hundreds will died - because of a private drone flown by an irresponsible owner. To me, it's utterly predictable.

I also predict that - increasingly - private drones will violate the privacy of individuals. Irresponsible owners will hover their drones near the windows of private residences, and make HD videos with sound. I can only imagine the fallout when private actions and conversations - from inside people's homes, increasingly appear on the web because of drones. Man hits wife or child; woman makes racist or other irresponsible comment. Use your imagination. Suddenly, all-too-human actions become public knowledge. And then careers are ruined; people become public pariahs; lives are destroyed.

It's one thing for people to expect their actions and conversations to not be fully private when they're in public; but it's another thing entirely when we can no longer expect privacy inside our own homes or the homes of our friends and acquaintances. It WILL happen. It will happen more more.

I think drones are a menace. I think the laws need to be changed: If a drone is flown over private property, the property owner should be able to destroy that drone (without endangering the public) without any other justification. Using a drone to violate another's privacy should be a felony, with severe criminal penalties. Parents should be held fully responsible for the their minor children's actions with drones. Also - and very importantly - every drone sold should be required to be covered by an insurance liability policy with high limit (say $10 million), for both actual and punitive damages, so that those harassed by drones have recourse. That insurance should be included in the purchase price.

I'm not even getting into drones used by terrorists here. That's another issue entirely, and perhaps even more scary. But if people insist on using drones, they must be held accountable for their actions and the aggregate actions of all those pursuing the hobby.

I'm going to disagree with most of what you wrote as being way too excessive.

While I agree that drone owners (Full Disclosure I am one), need to be held responsible for those actions your worries about privacy loss are over blown.

These things are as loud as a weed eater. You can't hear anything other than the buzz from the rotors, much less stealthily capture voices from inside a structure. They'd hear you and you wouldn't hear them.

Listen for yourself.

DJI Phantom 1

While the FAA doesn't enforce them often they are ultimately responsible for the safety of U.S. Airspace all the way down to the ground. If you want to destroy any flying object over your property you'll open yourself to civil and possibly legal penalties.

I was flying at a park behind my house and I was buzzed by an Apache. I landed but he was definitely below 200ft flying over the neighborhood.

I've found one case of a man killed by an RC helicopter, (not one of these drones), when he accidentally ran it into his head executing a trick. Baseball at all levels kills about 5-6 people a year.

I agree that insurance is good idea but your liability limits are ridiculous. Minimum liability for an auto accident is in the 10s of thousands. I'm much more likely to kill or do major damage with a 2 ton car than a two pound drone.

However the Academy of Model Aeronautics offers $2.5million in liability insurance for $58/year. It includes accident/medical insurance and fire, theft and vandalism insurance as well. That should be more than enough. I'm probably going to join just for that benefit.

However if you are still concerned about your privacy and want recreational drone operators handicapped by excessive laws, come on down to Texas.

The Texas Privacy Law states:

• Class C Misdemeanor to use a drone for surveillance without consent
• $500 fine per violation
• $10,000 civil penalties for surveillance with malice

There are a few exemptions however

• video taken below 8 ft
• video taken with 25 miles of the Texas/Mexico border. :hmm:
• Business use
• Police use - without warrant.

Surveillance is not defined by the act.

So don't worry in Texas if I take a video from my drone flying inside my house through a second story window of your property and post it I'm liable for hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines.

The police not so much.

This law came about after a recreational drone operator found a meat packing plant dumping animal wastes illegally into a local river.

The owner got the state representative to create the law on the threat of PETA flying over cattle ranches and Greenpeace flying over oil pipelines.

 

[CPA]

This law came about after a recreational drone operator found a meat packing plant dumping animal wastes illegally into a local river.

The owner got the state representative to create the law on the threat of PETA flying over cattle ranches and Greenpeace flying over oil pipelines.

Good for the state rep and Texas.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm going to disagree with most of what you wrote as being way too excessive.

While I agree that drone owners (Full Disclosure I am one), need to be held responsible for those actions your worries about privacy loss are over blown.

These things are as loud as a weed eater. You can't hear anything other than the buzz from the rotors, much less stealthily capture voices from inside a structure. They'd hear you and you wouldn't hear them.

Listen for yourself.

DJI Phantom 1

While the FAA doesn't enforce them often they are ultimately responsible for the safety of U.S. Airspace all the way down to the ground. If you want to destroy any flying object over your property you'll open yourself to civil and possibly legal penalties.

I was flying at a park behind my house and I was buzzed by an Apache. I landed but he was definitely below 200ft flying over the neighborhood.

I've found one case of a man killed by an RC helicopter, (not one of these drones), when he accidentally ran it into his head executing a trick. Baseball at all levels kills about 5-6 people a year.

I agree that insurance is good idea but your liability limits are ridiculous. Minimum liability for an auto accident is in the 10s of thousands. I'm much more likely to kill or do major damage with a 2 ton car than a two pound drone.

However the Academy of Model Aeronautics offers $2.5million in liability insurance for $58/year. It includes accident/medical insurance and fire, theft and vandalism insurance as well. That should be more than enough. I'm probably going to join just for that benefit.

However if you are still concerned about your privacy and want recreational drone operators handicapped by excessive laws, come on down to Texas.

The Texas Privacy Law states:

• Class C Misdemeanor to use a drone for surveillance without consent
• $500 fine per violation
• $10,000 civil penalties for surveillance with malice

There are a few exemptions however

• video taken below 8 ft
• video taken with 25 miles of the Texas/Mexico border. :hmm:
• Business use
• Police use - without warrant.

Surveillance is not defined by the act.

So don't worry in Texas if I take a video from my drone flying inside my house through a second story window of your property and post it I'm liable for hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines.

The police not so much.

This law came about after a recreational drone operator found a meat packing plant dumping animal wastes illegally into a local river.

The owner got the state representative to create the law on the threat of PETA flying over cattle ranches and Greenpeace flying over oil pipelines.

Oversight is sooo overrated. What's a little fecal waste in the water? That never hurt anyone.

 

[Darwin333]

I read that one of the biggest drone makers is programming their new drones so that they won't fly in restricted airspace. They come per-programmed with all of the airports in the country and simply will not let you fly near an airport. It even has the smaller regional airports programed in.

As far as privacy issues, just pass a law making it a felony to spy on someone using a drone and enforce it. Problem solved. The FAA or someone needs to speak up about how much airspace over your house you can expect to be private. If I am flying a drone at 400' over your house you have no right to shoot it down, I can't possibly be spying on you with the very small cameras that drones can handle. If I am flying it over your house below 50' that's a different story.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Oversight is sooo overrated. What's a little fecal waste in the water? That never hurt anyone.

That's what you get when your elected officials are bought and sold by big business.

 

[Darwin333]

Good for the state rep and Texas.

To pass a law banning the use of an object that just caught him illegally dumping waste?

I might agree with the law but it's absolutely fucked up on how and why it was implemented.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm getting a real reefer madness vibe from all of this drone hysteria. With all the guns freely floating around this country it's hard for me to see noisy bits of flying plastic as some sort of existential threat. Yes they can be annoying, and probably dangerous, but so can a million other things people aren't clutching their pearls over.

 

[Blackjack200]

I fully expect that sometime in the next two years a commercial airliner will crash - and hundreds will died - because of a private drone flown by an irresponsible owner. To me, it's utterly predictable.

No way. The only way those drones can damage a commercial airliner is to get sucked into the engine, and all commercial airliners have at least two engines and are capable of flying with one engine out.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, left wing fear mongering.

Oh wait, only the right uses fear.

 

[shira]

I know that most drone owners are responsible. But the problem is that you've got children flying these things, and that is going to be a huge problem. There's no parallel with cars and almost none with firearms.

Just wait until the first commercial airliner crashes because a drone flown by a 12-year-old is sucked into a jet-engine intake. Just wait until a drone flown by a child crashes into a pedestrian and severs their carotid artery, or distracts a driver and causes a fatal car crash. If drones have that kind of potential to cause damage, owners should be required to insure themselves against the liability for that potential damage. We have such requirements for automobiles; well, it's time to do it for drones, too.

The article says 700,000 of these things will be sold this year. It will be over a million new ones next year. And they'll be getting bigger and faster. If you can't imagine the potential for damage, you simply have no imagination.

 

[BoberFett]

Maybe you should add something about illegals, or the government taking away our guns. As long as you're gonna go full on "right wing" fear mongering, make the best of it.

 

[shira]

Maybe you should add something about illegals, or the government taking away our guns. As long as you're gonna go full on "right wing" fear mongering, make the best of it.

This isn't fear mongering. It's a a logical extrapolation.

Just remember you heard it here first.

 

[MtnMan]

A shotgun with #8 bird shot would be effective, except most munacipalities have laws against discharging a gun in the city limits. People have even gotten in trouble for taking Crazy Uncle Joe's shotgun defense suggest.

Someone needs to market an air powered device that will launch some mono-filament line to snarl the rotors and bring it down. The shotgun can be saved for when the owner and his buddies show up and threaten you to get their drone back.

 

[shira]

A shotgun with #8 bird shot would be effective, except most munacipalities have laws against discharging a gun in the city limits. People have even gotten in trouble for taking Crazy Uncle Joe's shotgun defense suggest.

Someone needs to market an air powered device that will launch some mono-filament line to snarl the rotors and bring it down. The shotgun can be saved for when the owner and his buddies show up and threaten you to get their drone back.

Not a bad idea for a product. There's money to be made in the drone wars.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Good for the state rep and Texas.

For wanting people to not document and report crimes? Huh?

I'm no fan of PETA but they did an inadvertent service to the ranchers and homeowners downstream of that Texas slaughterhouse who were depending on that river for home use and for watering their herds.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

A shotgun with #8 bird shot would be effective, except most munacipalities have laws against discharging a gun in the city limits. People have even gotten in trouble for taking Crazy Uncle Joe's shotgun defense suggest.

Someone needs to market an air powered device that will launch some mono-filament line to snarl the rotors and bring it down. The shotgun can be saved for when the owner and his buddies show up and threaten you to get their drone back.

That's a great idea right up to the point when you shoot down a drone that is being used by law enforcement and you find yourself at the sh*t end of a SWAT team. Be sure to tell us all how that works out for you when you get out of prison. :awe:

 

[werepossum]

I'm going to disagree with most of what you wrote as being way too excessive.

While I agree that drone owners (Full Disclosure I am one), need to be held responsible for those actions your worries about privacy loss are over blown.

These things are as loud as a weed eater. You can't hear anything other than the buzz from the rotors, much less stealthily capture voices from inside a structure. They'd hear you and you wouldn't hear them.

Listen for yourself.

DJI Phantom 1

While the FAA doesn't enforce them often they are ultimately responsible for the safety of U.S. Airspace all the way down to the ground. If you want to destroy any flying object over your property you'll open yourself to civil and possibly legal penalties.

I was flying at a park behind my house and I was buzzed by an Apache. I landed but he was definitely below 200ft flying over the neighborhood.

I've found one case of a man killed by an RC helicopter, (not one of these drones), when he accidentally ran it into his head executing a trick. Baseball at all levels kills about 5-6 people a year.

I agree that insurance is good idea but your liability limits are ridiculous. Minimum liability for an auto accident is in the 10s of thousands. I'm much more likely to kill or do major damage with a 2 ton car than a two pound drone.

However the Academy of Model Aeronautics offers $2.5million in liability insurance for $58/year. It includes accident/medical insurance and fire, theft and vandalism insurance as well. That should be more than enough. I'm probably going to join just for that benefit.

However if you are still concerned about your privacy and want recreational drone operators handicapped by excessive laws, come on down to Texas.

The Texas Privacy Law states:

• Class C Misdemeanor to use a drone for surveillance without consent
• $500 fine per violation
• $10,000 civil penalties for surveillance with malice

There are a few exemptions however

• video taken below 8 ft
• video taken with 25 miles of the Texas/Mexico border. :hmm:
• Business use
• Police use - without warrant.

Surveillance is not defined by the act.

So don't worry in Texas if I take a video from my drone flying inside my house through a second story window of your property and post it I'm liable for hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines.

The police not so much.

This law came about after a recreational drone operator found a meat packing plant dumping animal wastes illegally into a local river.

The owner got the state representative to create the law on the threat of PETA flying over cattle ranches and Greenpeace flying over oil pipelines.

I tend to agree with the Texas laws, except I think anything under 250 feet should be fair game if it hovers long enough for me to go get my shotgun. And operating it over a public waterway (or grounds) should be legal.

I read that one of the biggest drone makers is programming their new drones so that they won't fly in restricted airspace. They come per-programmed with all of the airports in the country and simply will not let you fly near an airport. It even has the smaller regional airports programed in.

As far as privacy issues, just pass a law making it a felony to spy on someone using a drone and enforce it. Problem solved. The FAA or someone needs to speak up about how much airspace over your house you can expect to be private. If I am flying a drone at 400' over your house you have no right to shoot it down, I can't possibly be spying on you with the very small cameras that drones can handle. If I am flying it over your house below 50' that's a different story.

Agreed, except on the Internet anonymity is simple and widespread. Some drone operator can easily post embarrassing footage without being personally identifiable.

I know that most drone owners are responsible. But the problem is that you've got children flying these things, and that is going to be a huge problem. There's no parallel with cars and almost none with firearms.

Just wait until the first commercial airliner crashes because a drone flown by a 12-year-old is sucked into a jet-engine intake. Just wait until a drone flown by a child crashes into a pedestrian and severs their carotid artery, or distracts a driver and causes a fatal car crash. If drones have that kind of potential to cause damage, owners should be required to insure themselves against the liability for that potential damage. We have such requirements for automobiles; well, it's time to do it for drones, too.

The article says 700,000 of these things will be sold this year. It will be over a million new ones next year. And they'll be getting bigger and faster. If you can't imagine the potential for damage, you simply have no imagination.

I totally agree about the jet engine; an airliner losing an engine, especially just after take-off when it's low and heavy, is at very real risk of crashing. For the other, Paratus's $2.5 million for $58 insurance seems about perfect. The fatal RC craft crash was a stunt helicopter with a six foot rotor, hardly the same thing as a small quadrotor. Of course, that one cut through his skull so it isn't near the safe point, but determining the point at which operators need to be licensed and heavily regulated probably isn't that difficult.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Agreed, except on the Internet anonymity is simple and widespread. Some drone operator can easily post embarrassing footage without being personally identifiable.

Now I'm curious: What is it you do outside your house that would be embarrassing if the rest of the world were to see it?

 

[Brian Stirling]

LOL, left wing fear mongering.

Oh wait, only the right uses fear.

The highly restrictive law mentioned is from Texas and was done to protect big business from lefty types. Talk about getting things 100% backwards!


Brian

 

[werepossum]

Now I'm curious: What is it you do outside your house that would be embarrassing if the rest of the world were to see it?

Pretty much everything I do outside my house is embarrassing if the rest of the world were to see it. But damnit, I have a very good reason to mow my yard in a purple unitard, pink boa, and red high heels! I can't recall it right at this moment, but I feel confident it's there. Somewhere.

I keed, I keed. Ask my neighbors and they'll tell you I never mow my yard.

 

[Paratus]

I know that most drone owners are responsible. But the problem is that you've got children flying these things, and that is going to be a huge problem. There's no parallel with cars and almost none with firearms.

Just wait until the first commercial airliner crashes because a drone flown by a 12-year-old is sucked into a jet-engine intake. Just wait until a drone flown by a child crashes into a pedestrian and severs their carotid artery, or distracts a driver and causes a fatal car crash. If drones have that kind of potential to cause damage, owners should be required to insure themselves against the liability for that potential damage. We have such requirements for automobiles; well, it's time to do it for drones, too.

The article says 700,000 of these things will be sold this year. It will be over a million new ones next year. And they'll be getting bigger and faster. If you can't imagine the potential for damage, you simply have no imagination.

Let's address some of these concerns.

RC aircraft have been around for a while and have had more than enough capability to take out an airliner. Of course this hasn't happened because the skill level and cost required to actually fly one meant only responsible hobbyists were flying in the first place.

As you said your concerned about about kids and other irresponsible people beinng a danger due to the easy out of the box flying capabilities and low cost of the new drones.

Looking at what's available on the market the larger 10-20lbs flying ocotocopters are almost all kits that cost thousands to the price of an entry level Kia. They're meant for professional videography and aren't going to be involved inane stupid stunts simply due to cost and skill required to assemble.

The real problem will be the smaller quads flyable straight out of the box and with enough capability to get in the way of an airliner. Any quad that uses wifi and a phone as a controller doesn't have the range to get into trouble.

That leaves GPS enabled quads with real 2.4ghz or 5.8ghz controllers, 10-30minute flight times, several 1000ft range, speeds of 20-50mph, and weights of 1.5-3lbs. Prices range from $400 to $3000 at this level. Some examples (DJI since that's what I'm most familiar with.

• Phantom 1 $400 | 1.5 lbs | ~1KM range | 12 min flight time. | 20+ mph (This is the one that crashed on the White House Lawn)
• Phantom 3 series $1000 +-250 | 2+lbs | 1KM range | 25 min | 30+ mph (This is the one that was shot down in Kentucky)
• Inspire 1 $3000 | 3+lbs | 1KM range |18 min | 50mph (This one sliced Enrique Iglesias.)

The newer Phantoms and the Inspire come with GPS limiters set to 400ft vertical and no fly zones around local airports. (This capability can be turned off if you know which mode to fly in.)

So in the future your concern is really limited to irresponsible fliers who are willing to do stupid things with $800+ quads and know how to fly without the GPS assist features so they can potentially put the quad into the path of a manned vehicle.

I do see the potential to crash a passenger plane by engine ingestion coupled with another potential failure, I don't see it as likely.

I think reasonable restrictions would be to require a cheap and easy registration of the quad to identify the owner. Require all new quads to have the GPS limiter and no fly features out of the box and an FAA rules manual for recreational flying in the box.

Required insurance, maybe on certain classes of drones determined by weight or performance.

Quite frankly I think a few dumb asses getting publicly busted for interfering with manned vehicles would go along way to clue other idiots in.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am officially pro-private drone take down.

At first, I figured it was nut job hill people who were worried about the Gubnament spying on them, or trying to assassinate them for not taking their vaccination shots.

But, it turns out, that drone hobbyists are jerk offs looking to snap pics of naked women, piss off random people or buzz commercial airplanes.

Enough.

By all means, race your drones through obstacle courses. Check out caves, caverns, tree tops, etc. But, stay the fuck away from 14 year old girls sun bathing by the pool and Jet Blue planes trying to land.

And, if you can't, prepare to have rocks and hot lead take your $2,000 toy away, jerk offs.

 

[Paratus]

I tend to agree with the Texas laws, except I think anything under 250 feet should be fair game if it hovers long enough for me to go get my shotgun. And operating it over a public waterway (or grounds) should be legal.


Agreed, except on the Internet anonymity is simple and widespread. Some drone operator can easily post embarrassing footage without being personally identifiable.


I totally agree about the jet engine; an airliner losing an engine, especially just after take-off when it's low and heavy, is at very real risk of crashing. For the other, Paratus's $2.5 million for $58 insurance seems about perfect. The fatal RC craft crash was a stunt helicopter with a six foot rotor, hardly the same thing as a small quadrotor. Of course, that one cut through his skull so it isn't near the safe point, but determining the point at which operators need to be licensed and heavily regulated probably isn't that difficult.

Flying in public and taking video of people on public land is legal. The problem is I can see a lot of not public land from 400ft.

I'll also point out you have no right to shoot it out the air anymore than you have a right to shoot the neighbors RC car when he crashes it on your property.

I do think the penalties for surveillance are fine, I just want an exemption for recreational flying. When I fly at the local parks there's still private property around. The views would be similar to google maps satellite view. So I don't see how that invades anyone's privacy.

Quite frankly we have Apache helicopters flying overhead around here anyway, it's not like they aren't taking video over private property. No ones going to shoot at them either.