

Drones With an Eye on the Public Cleared to Fly - pash
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/technology/drones-with-an-eye-on-the-public-cleared-to-fly.html

======
pash
Quick summary:

 _A new [US] federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the
Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of
commercial endeavors — from selling real estate and dusting crops, to
monitoring oil spills and wildlife, even shooting Hollywood films. Local
police and emergency services will also be freer to send up their own drones.
..._

 _Under the new law, within 90 days, the F.A.A. must allow police and first
responders to fly drones under 4.4 pounds, as long as they keep them under an
altitude of 400 feet and meet other requirements. The agency must also allow
for “the safe integration” of all kinds of drones into American airspace,
including those for commercial uses, by Sept. 30, 2015._

Most of the rest of the article is about privacy concerns.

------
jsiarto
As someone who has been an RC enthusiast all his life and is just now getting
into multi-rotor drones--I can say that this is a step in the right direction.
Currently, the only legal way to operate drones in US airspace is a
recreational activity (RC airplanes/helis). As soon as you try and operate in
the commercial sphere you immediately come under the FAA UASs regulations
which essentially limit the flight of drones to groups with COA (Certificate
of Authority) and only government and university groups are being granter
these waivers.

As other have said, there are many many commercial/non-military uses for these
things and we have to have someway to allow their regulated, legal use.

Also, most of these drones (at least the ones I'm building) use open source
hardware and software (OpenPilot, Arducopter (DIY Drones), etc) which can be
monitored by the general public. I don't think it's quite time to put on the
tin-foil hats with this--the FAA is just trying to make our airways safe and
make sure aircraft that are carrying humans continue to do so safely.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Out of curiosity, what distinguishes a Drone from a hobbyist RC aircraft?

~~~
jsiarto
Just to clarify:

\- RC Flying (hobby): Line of sight, RC controlled radio aircraft (non-
turbine) that stay below 400'

\- RC Drones (hobby): Line of sight, RC controlled but capable of unmanned
flight either via pre-programmed instructions or GPS (note: regardless of
capabilities, these aircraft must sill stay below 400' and be non-commercial)

\- Commercial Drones / RC-for-hire: These are aircraft that are flown for
commercial reasons (aerial photography, crop monitoring,
surveillance)--meaning someone is giving you $$ to operate the aircraft. They
could just be normal, off-the-shelf RC airplanes -- but it's use is what is
restricted.

The reason that the FAA is concerned with commercial use is that in order for
that to work, drones need to be safely integrated into US airspace. How would
you feel if you were taking a flight from SFO to ORD and some jackass with a
"drone" gets his multi-copter sucked into your engine? Also, there are
insurance issues with this as well. I have insurance through the AMA (Academy
of Model Aeronautics) which covers me if I fly my 5 pound airplane into a
house or mess something up (so long as I'm flying in designated areas for non-
commercial purposes).

What happens when someone who's doing aerial photography for a wedding and his
heli falls out of the sky (they do that sometimes) hurting a guest? Who pays
for that? Insurance companies need a way to asses the risk of these thing
flying around commercially.

Lots to think about--privacy, safety, big brother...

------
ck2
Well at least we'll be able to track the moves of every politician that voted
for this and show their paths on Google maps someday - until they vote
exclusions for themselves.

Seriously, this is insanity.

One day soon they'll be able to track someone from birth to death, in
realtime.

~~~
pash
Authorizing drones to fly in US airspace is hardly insanity. There are lots of
commercial (and hobbyist) uses for drones, and I think it's great that there
will soon be a way to pursue them legally.

There are obvious concerns about the the use of drones by law enforcement,
etc., but those can and should be dealt with separately. You don't control
abusive surveillance by banning technologies, whether that be drones or
cameras or microphones or GPS radios or whatever. You control abusive
surveillance by banning particular uses of those technologies, particularly by
the state.

~~~
ck2
In a decade when there is a google map for your entire year of travel that is
public to the world, that you did not authorize but have no way to stop, we'll
see how you feel about this.

There is zero overhead to running 1000 drones over a city once they get the
technology right. Neighbors will be spying on neighbors in every detail.

Good luck closing the door on privacy once it's blasted open like this.

~~~
barefoot
This data is already being collected (anonymously) to some extent:

<http://www.skyhookwireless.com/location-intelligence/>

------
Nate75Sanders
Can my drone shoot down your drone if yours invades my airspace?

What about if I deem your drone a nuisance/pest (in my airspace) and shoot it
down?

~~~
pash
Serious reply to an unserious question:

In the common law tradition, land owners' property rights extended literally
"to the heavens" [0]. Overflying someone's property (in a balloon, say) was
legally a trespass. But in the United States land-owners' air rights were
progressively diminished by the courts in deference to practical
considerations as civil aviation developed in the first half of the last
century. In 1946, in a ruling that is the basis of current law, the Supreme
Court decided that a land-owner "owns at least as much of the space above the
ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of
that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface." [1]
Rights to the rest of the country's airspace appertain to the federal
government.

So if your nemesis sends a drone into the space immediately over your
property, you would likely have the same rights to respond as if he had sent a
land-lubbing robot onto it. (Courts have ruled that a crane overhanging one's
property constitutes a trespass, for instance.) Generally you would be able to
seek an injunction against continued trespass and/or sue for damages under
various torts (interference, nuisance, etc.). You probably would not have the
right to shoot down the drone, unless perhaps you have reason to believe that
the drone might do you serious harm and you are in a jurisdiction where some
form of the Castle doctrine [2] applies.

Rights to airspace, and how they've changed over the years, are a great
illustration of how property rights are not at all static but are continually
rejiggered to fit the times. (Perhaps we can expect more tweaks as drones
become common?) Michael Heller's book _Gridlock Economy_ [3] has an
interesting chapter on how rights to airspace have been adapted to allow for
civil aviation. If you're super interested, there is at least one full-length
book [4] (which I haven't read) on the history of the legal concept of
airspace in the United States.

0\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos)

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby>

2\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine>

3\. [http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Economy-Ownership-Markets-
Inn...](http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Economy-Ownership-Markets-
Innovation/dp/0465029167)

4\. [http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-
Airspace/dp/0674...](http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-
Airspace/dp/0674030826)

~~~
Nate75Sanders
It was, in fact, a serious question.

I fully expect people to shoot at them from the ground (and it's already
happened, as evidenced by a post in this thread).

Additionally, I fully expect people to create drones that attack, disrupt, etc
other drones.

Thanks for the in-depth reply.

------
damncabbage

      Drone proponents say the privacy concerns are overblown.
      Randy McDaniel, chief deputy of the Montgomery County 
      Sheriff’s Department in Conroe, Tex., near Houston, whose 
      agency bought a drone to use for various law enforcement 
      operations, dismissed worries about surveillance, saying 
      everyone everywhere can be photographed with cellphone 
      cameras anyway. “We don’t spy on people,” he said. “We 
      worry about criminal elements.”
    

The density of the double-speak in this paragraph is breathtaking.

------
nitrogen
Note to anyone with a swimming pool: install a roof.

Giving the capability of aerial surveillance to anyone who can afford a drone
would mean the end of outdoor privacy, even in your own backyard, no matter
how tall your fence is. Say goodbye to the sun.

~~~
tomkinstinch
We used to own air rights on property ( _Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad
caelum et ad inferos_ ), until the era of commercial aviation.

It's my understanding that in the US, planes today have to maintain a certain
distance from people and structures (500 ft?).

I wonder if you saw a drone 50 feet above your house if you would be in your
right to, say, get out your slingshot and defend yourself. Even if the done
weren't hostile, a drone helicopter could be dangerous if it runs out of
energy and falls on your head.

~~~
barefoot
500 feet minimum from any person, place, or thing and 1,000 feet in densely
populated areas.

Although, 500 feet is not far at all. I've taken a friend up with a telephoto
lens and a mid-range SLR and even at 1,000 feet there's not much privacy.

------
bwarp
Good job you lucky guys in the US can sit in the back yard with a 12 gauge!

I wonder how many hours it's going to be before someone shoots one.

~~~
bwarp
I hate replying to my own post, but it's done already!

<http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1329576173>

------
lacamu
OK, I guess I wouldn't mind having dropped on my head a 4.4 pound drone
traveling, hmm, approximately:

sqrt(2 _g_ distance) = Sqrt(2 _32.3_ (400 feet)) = 160 f.p.s.

with about 160 fps * 4.4lbs = 700 ft-lb of energy

!!! Well, maybe not!

~~~
bwarp
Please use metric. It's the 21st century now.

~~~
xxpor
A lot of engineering in the US (especially civil) still uses standard. Believe
me, I would prefer metric because it makes calculations 100x easier, but
there's a lot of legacy stuff out there.

~~~
tripzilch
"Standard"? Isn't it called "imperial"?

It's not standard if there's only one industrialized country left in the world
that uses it :)

~~~
xxpor
In engineering circles, it's called standard.

~~~
bwarp
Not in europe it's not!

~~~
xxpor
And I was talking about the US.

------
EwanG
Personally, I am hoping someone will setup a service where I can "hitch" a
ride. I can't get out to the National Parks as often as I would like, and I'd
love to be able to see the birds' eye view from one of these doing an overfly.

------
klbarry
This could add quite a bit to the economy, in my opinion. There's countless
applications for these things.

