As stated in the article: "Huerta checked off the established rules: Do not fly above 400 feet, do not fly within five miles of an airport and do not use it for any commercial purpose (there are some exceptions now)." The writer does not say whether this conversation happened before or after he took his drone to the park in Manhattan.
Morningside Park is within 5 miles of LaGuardia. What business did he have even flying that thing at all, in restricted airspace, with no prior experience, on a rainy day (while ignoring the manufacturer's warning)? He should have been arrested.
Multiply this one irresponsible person by the thousands of others with the same attitude about their new "toy", and you can see why there is annoyance and anger, and yes, fear, about drones in the hands of our fellow citizen pilots.
Morningside Park is within 5 miles of LaGuardia. What business did he have even flying that thing at all, in restricted airspace, with no prior experience, on a rainy day (while ignoring the manufacturer's warning)? He should have been arrested.
Multiply this one irresponsible person by the thousands of others with the same attitude about their new "toy", and you can see why there is annoyance and anger, and yes, fear, about drones in the hands of our fellow citizen pilots.
1
I really hate "drone" being used as much as it is. Its akin to "people buying assault rifles" same common misguided reaction, people who buy a ar-15 are not buying an assault rifle their buying a semi-automatic "assault rifle look-alike". Same thing for quads and other multi-rotor r/c aircraft. These are not drones, their remote controlled flying machines, no one has hada problem with people building 200lb turbine jet powered r/c planes / helicopters/ boats etc. now with those you can do real damage. But a small to medium quad copter can not carry heavy loads nor can it carry weapons, so what it has a camera on it? ohh noes not a camera, its not like you don't sit in front of a computer with a camera on it, or you carry a cell phone, or you don't walk down the street, where your being filmed every min of every day by the government, all your calls and e-mail and texts are being read and stored, and everyone is afraid of "drone pilots". Seriously people get your priorities straight. Fight the "man" not a man with a remote controlled toy.
If law enforcement is allowed to shoot people remotely with drones in the next decade (very likely in my view) I think it's more difficult to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions and to keep them emotionally involved with the pixels below.
This is nor paranoia. Drones may be used by terrorists. I am sure, ISIS come to this once. Don't you think they are too well equipped and contemporary for simple terrorists? Drones cost ten times less expensive than other types of aircraft with weapons.
It is just like the speculations about millions being killed by laser bombs from high in the sky! Laser guns were described as the ultimate weapons almost doing away with AK47! Have you heard of any laser gun of late? Drones can be very easily IDed and destroyed on entering prohibited areas with the available technology.
I think we have lost our bearings. We acquiesce in the sale of high powered rifles, but quiver in the face of something that, as you point out, poses less of a threat than many ubiquitous consumer goods. I use the high power rifle example because of the constant yammering about drones flying into commercial aviation airspace. Is it a concern? Yes, but let's put it in perspective.
As you probably know from flying your model, these consumer drones are controllable remotely only to about 1/2 mile. After that, the signal cuts out, the drone ascends to 600' and returns home. A rifle, on the other hand, is a much greater threat. A sniper with a .50 caliber rifle can penetrate the skin of an airplane at about a mile, shred the engine rotors and cause a disaster.
I don't hear much about the sniper threat, and I wonder why. I wish we would focus on the real threats that face us everyday, instead of imagining bombs on toys. We can't keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, but we're all fired-up to stop this drone thing (whatever that is). I was interested by what you said in the article, but it does not help me to understand this phenomenon.
As you probably know from flying your model, these consumer drones are controllable remotely only to about 1/2 mile. After that, the signal cuts out, the drone ascends to 600' and returns home. A rifle, on the other hand, is a much greater threat. A sniper with a .50 caliber rifle can penetrate the skin of an airplane at about a mile, shred the engine rotors and cause a disaster.
I don't hear much about the sniper threat, and I wonder why. I wish we would focus on the real threats that face us everyday, instead of imagining bombs on toys. We can't keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, but we're all fired-up to stop this drone thing (whatever that is). I was interested by what you said in the article, but it does not help me to understand this phenomenon.
I was heading toward an open air market in San Francisco a couple of days ago and noticed a few people staring upwards at a large helicopter size drone in the sky. I knew the President was in town and wondered what it was doing there. Imagine some terrorist with such a drone militarized with missiles, anthrax loose in your city-I hardly call that paranoia. More like commonsense.
1
100 mph and just what would 'keep in sight' mean? What a sick joke!
1
I worry about abuse, stalking, peeping toms, Paparazzi, all that. And security, too. But not so much because of what drones can do now, as much as what they will be able to do in another 5-10 years with the current pace of innovation in batteries, cameras, machine learning, etc. In a few years, drones will be operating with higher payloads, longer flight times, and will be capable of surveillance and remote operation all on a small budget. Government has to be ahead of the curve, for once. Not likely to happen, though.
It turns out that you can see a machine gun firing drone (for you purists, a small "quad copter") on YouTube. Really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU
It's not very comforting that on what sounds like your first flight you flew in a densely populated area, likely above other people, and in inclement weather. While the Phantom quadcopters are much more of a toy than what most people have in their mind when they think "drone", they can still cause significant personal and property damage if operated incorrectly. I agree with you that much of the public's concern about these devices is misplaced and the danger is more inherent in the people operating them than the device itself. But a disregard for the legal boundaries and common sense flying protocol in this piece gives further fuel to those who are ideologically opposed to drones.
1
People fail to realize that although drones can and will be used for bad, the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Technology allows for more productive commerce. Will that boost in productivity enhance the quality of life of the worlds inhabitants? Very likely so. The key is putting the technology out there so the problems can be identified and the appropriate solutions found.
I can imagine things like GIS based restrictions on where you can fly and people being able to restrict flights around their property. I can imagine certain safety intelligence that has to be integrated into every drone sold.
Drones are legitimate tools. A lot of people still can't imagine drones drastically changing their life but they will even if that person never uses a drone personally. More efficient production benefits the masses.
Technology allows for more productive commerce. Will that boost in productivity enhance the quality of life of the worlds inhabitants? Very likely so. The key is putting the technology out there so the problems can be identified and the appropriate solutions found.
I can imagine things like GIS based restrictions on where you can fly and people being able to restrict flights around their property. I can imagine certain safety intelligence that has to be integrated into every drone sold.
Drones are legitimate tools. A lot of people still can't imagine drones drastically changing their life but they will even if that person never uses a drone personally. More efficient production benefits the masses.
If people can get it together to take a test to drive a motorcycle, then there should be a test for drone owners. I think insurance would be another nice touch. It may look like a toy but they are capable of real harm.
While I understand peoples reluctance to adopt more regulation, the alternative is frequently worse.
While I understand peoples reluctance to adopt more regulation, the alternative is frequently worse.
2
Unjustified paranoia eh? Talking about flying a drone does not address how it feels to have one following you down the street taking photos of you. We don't need more people knowing everything we are doing every day. I don't want my photo posted by someone with a drone . Period.
7
I don't want your noise pollution, I don't want to be in a video you post, and I don't want your toy falling on my head or that of anyone else.
12
The paranoia is justified. Look at the long list of negatives. It is not really paranoia, the fear is for real. For us who rightfully do not want the NSI, why would we want a toy taking pictures of the inside of our bedrooms? I have my right to privacy, don't you think? Besides the real lurking dangers for aviation safety and security measures. Just imagine these toys (innocent as they seem) in the hands of terrorist planning an attack! And for what? The thrill, the intrigue (peeping into other people's bedrooms) or perhaps just the high from challenging the limits of the law. While real drones are lethal, the toy-drone could be a close second. Dangerous toys are removed from the shelves. So should it be for these toy-drones.
8
Some of us have studied unmanned aviation and realize that these "toys" have none of the safeguards that "real" airplanes do, but still have most of the hazards associated, though in a smaller scale. A runaway drone can destroy hte engine on an airplane, can kill innocent bystanders, and in our current world, exists primarily for rich kids to spy on people without any regard to safety or privacy (ignoring, of course, the politically connected-rich who use them to shoot missiles at brown people).
What good comes out of this? The FAA is right to be very deliberate about rulemaking. In 100 years of aviation history, we've seen hundreds of thousands of people die in aviation accidents. With 100 years of experience and safety rules, 400 people a year die in the US with well trained pilots and very regulated maintenance and design rules. The consequences of hundreds of thousands of entitled brats and poorly trained "drone operators" in the Pollyann'ish world of tomorrow should be very concerning. Nothing about taking the pilot out of an airplane makes it safer.
What good comes out of this? The FAA is right to be very deliberate about rulemaking. In 100 years of aviation history, we've seen hundreds of thousands of people die in aviation accidents. With 100 years of experience and safety rules, 400 people a year die in the US with well trained pilots and very regulated maintenance and design rules. The consequences of hundreds of thousands of entitled brats and poorly trained "drone operators" in the Pollyann'ish world of tomorrow should be very concerning. Nothing about taking the pilot out of an airplane makes it safer.
4
Would you like a helicopter flying outside your window? Or lots of them, say 100, giving tours while you are looking out at the Grand Canyon or other scenic park?
Should we let your neighbor drive a car on the sidewalk, or land a plane on the highway?
Regulations are intended to protect the general public from threats deriving from people who do not appreciate the risk they present, such as texting drivers, with their eyes on the screen when they really desparately need to be on the road.
We have rules against restaurant operators serving food which has not been properly cooked or kept at safe temperatures. Should we just throw such rules away just because anyone can cook?
Operating a drone gives its operator a view, without the same degree of risk of injury to the operator that flying a plane in the same space would entail, but drones nevertheless pose a threat or present a disturbance to other people in their path, and should be regulated accordingly.
Should we let your neighbor drive a car on the sidewalk, or land a plane on the highway?
Regulations are intended to protect the general public from threats deriving from people who do not appreciate the risk they present, such as texting drivers, with their eyes on the screen when they really desparately need to be on the road.
We have rules against restaurant operators serving food which has not been properly cooked or kept at safe temperatures. Should we just throw such rules away just because anyone can cook?
Operating a drone gives its operator a view, without the same degree of risk of injury to the operator that flying a plane in the same space would entail, but drones nevertheless pose a threat or present a disturbance to other people in their path, and should be regulated accordingly.
3
"The problem is not technology. It is, as it always was, us."
That sounds like "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
I suggest the author read some of the other NYT articles posted today about facelessness in an online environment and how one stupid tweet ruined people's lives. There are folks out there who love technology for its own sake--the sheer gee whiz factor--or for how it saves/makes money for them. I wish they would love their neighbors more.
That sounds like "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
I suggest the author read some of the other NYT articles posted today about facelessness in an online environment and how one stupid tweet ruined people's lives. There are folks out there who love technology for its own sake--the sheer gee whiz factor--or for how it saves/makes money for them. I wish they would love their neighbors more.
5
Out here in the country a shot gun full of rock salt is often used to keep people or drones off the property. Will there be laws against people shooting down drones, that should be interesting.
3
Nice snapshot of where we are now with small drones. Like others, I've given a lot of thought to how the technology is likely to evolve. I've found one inevitable direction particularly intriguing: smaller size and longer battery life. (I've written about it at squeezeshot.org.) Imagine drones the size of mosquitoes. Imagine such devices becoming commonplace, as ubiquitous as cellphones are now. Imagine how hard (impossible?) it will be to regulate their use. Imagine all the mutual observation and snooping that will go on. Anyone will be able to observe anyone or anything, anywhere, at any time, without being seen. The implications are enormous, re our privacy, secrecy, and security; our sense of self and community; our relationships at every level, with loved ones, neighbors, colleagues, and the wider world. A (much) greater democratization of aviation than we're facing now, and a widespread crisis, perhaps, of the paranoia the article alludes to. The prospect is exciting, and daunting. A brave new world, indeed, sure to come?
There will need to be a new type of "no fly zone" for drones. I saw an article on Popular Science the other day about how to register the space around your house, or any other place you don't want a drone intrusion, so that it would appear on maps alerting dronies that you don't want them messing around, even if they do like the view of your wife or daughter out by the swimming pool.
There has also been a leak of information related to the FAA's emerging plan to regulate drones. Apparently, the idea is to require a license for some type or even all types of drone operators that would cost $300. and require training and passing a test. Not a bad idea at all. Maybe some smaller, toy like drones could be exempt from this process. (Where my family once lived in rural Oklahoma we could have flown a small blimp with flashing lights and no one would have known.)
There is another way to limit drone intrusions into airport air space, around military installations, etc. I would predict that within a couple of years it could become standard: equip the drone with a radio tuned to accept and respond to a "stand off" signal. These signals could only be emitted by being themselves licensed or otherwise controlled. The White House, for example, could have a stand off signal for a mile or so around, even though any operation of a drone in DC is illegal, some additional protection is obviously needed. I plan to work on a prototype of such a radio signal device.
Doug Terry
There has also been a leak of information related to the FAA's emerging plan to regulate drones. Apparently, the idea is to require a license for some type or even all types of drone operators that would cost $300. and require training and passing a test. Not a bad idea at all. Maybe some smaller, toy like drones could be exempt from this process. (Where my family once lived in rural Oklahoma we could have flown a small blimp with flashing lights and no one would have known.)
There is another way to limit drone intrusions into airport air space, around military installations, etc. I would predict that within a couple of years it could become standard: equip the drone with a radio tuned to accept and respond to a "stand off" signal. These signals could only be emitted by being themselves licensed or otherwise controlled. The White House, for example, could have a stand off signal for a mile or so around, even though any operation of a drone in DC is illegal, some additional protection is obviously needed. I plan to work on a prototype of such a radio signal device.
Doug Terry
@TerryReport
The DJI company (manufacturer of the Phantom and other small "drones" )already has software that will not allow their RC aircraft to fly within 5 miles of most major US airports. So save your time reinventing the wheel.
Also I suggest that future "drone" pilots check a site like Skyvector, to study Low Level aviation charts for the area where they fly . If you are within 5 nm of an airport you may be flying in Class B airspace, a violation of FAA rules. Be aware of TFRs, restricted airspace like the Capitol area too.
It will be a shame if this hysteria about "drones", (Multirotors is the term I prefer,) ends up restricting/ grounding other RC aircraft, like the 4 meter RC sailplanes I launch, here in rural Vermont. They can stay up in thermals; often for over an hour, once they catch that first column of rising air.
Commercial Airline pilot, AMA member
The DJI company (manufacturer of the Phantom and other small "drones" )already has software that will not allow their RC aircraft to fly within 5 miles of most major US airports. So save your time reinventing the wheel.
Also I suggest that future "drone" pilots check a site like Skyvector, to study Low Level aviation charts for the area where they fly . If you are within 5 nm of an airport you may be flying in Class B airspace, a violation of FAA rules. Be aware of TFRs, restricted airspace like the Capitol area too.
It will be a shame if this hysteria about "drones", (Multirotors is the term I prefer,) ends up restricting/ grounding other RC aircraft, like the 4 meter RC sailplanes I launch, here in rural Vermont. They can stay up in thermals; often for over an hour, once they catch that first column of rising air.
Commercial Airline pilot, AMA member
1
It is amazing how many people cannot differentiate between a fixed wing large aircraft without a pilot and something that is an expensive toy helicopter. Would it make many feel better if we just called these toy helicopters? The word drone is similar to the word mammal. Mammals give birth live and nurse their young. They range from tiny mice to giant whales. Drone is something that flies without a human pilot aboard. They range from battery powered toy helicopters to 100 foot wingspan ones that can stay aloft for 24 hours and carry deadly missiles.
Let's talk about privacy. If you doing something either illegal or you don't want others to see, don't do it where it can be seen from public space. Close your curtains, don't have sex on the front lawn and don't blame others for calling the police when you are doing something illegal in plain site. Not hard, is it?
Let's talk about reality, not conjecture.
Let's talk about privacy. If you doing something either illegal or you don't want others to see, don't do it where it can be seen from public space. Close your curtains, don't have sex on the front lawn and don't blame others for calling the police when you are doing something illegal in plain site. Not hard, is it?
Let's talk about reality, not conjecture.
1
RDS,
A baseball, dropped from a hundred feet, is lethal. A battery, hurled from 50 feet, is lethal. These are batteries with airfoils. flown by entitled brats. The article you clearly didn't read cites people routinely violating FAA safety regulations and arrogantly posting the evidence. I've not been close yet, but several of my other pilot friends have been dangerously close to these menaces.
A baseball, dropped from a hundred feet, is lethal. A battery, hurled from 50 feet, is lethal. These are batteries with airfoils. flown by entitled brats. The article you clearly didn't read cites people routinely violating FAA safety regulations and arrogantly posting the evidence. I've not been close yet, but several of my other pilot friends have been dangerously close to these menaces.
1
And yet the fact remains that some technologies make it easier for people to perform these creepy, privacy-invading tasks. The last paragraph of this article borders on the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Which, sure, but I mean, guns make it A LOT easier. And on a MUCH greater scale.
I'm also a bit tired of this rhetoric that dismisses all people who aren't thrilled with new technologies as Luddites. Certainly, there are reasons to worry about new technologies. We get used to technologies, but that doesn't mean their risks go away. I would put forth myself as an example of a person who is not technologically averse. I am fairly adept with computers and learn new technologies/programs/software fairly quickly, I bought the first model of the ipod when it came out, I had a cell phone before many of my friends, I signed up for facebook the day that my university's .edu email addresses were accepted by it, as was the requirements early on. I (embarrassingly) took selfies before this could be done with a phone. But I have become increasingly critical of technology, as I become increasingly aware of its consequences for our privacy, our social lives, the way we access and relate to information, etc. New technologies should lead to serious critical dialogue, and that dialogue is often shut off by techies who simply slander any questioners with the "Luddite" label, as if all questioning is simply behind the times. If anything, it's ahead of the times.
I'm also a bit tired of this rhetoric that dismisses all people who aren't thrilled with new technologies as Luddites. Certainly, there are reasons to worry about new technologies. We get used to technologies, but that doesn't mean their risks go away. I would put forth myself as an example of a person who is not technologically averse. I am fairly adept with computers and learn new technologies/programs/software fairly quickly, I bought the first model of the ipod when it came out, I had a cell phone before many of my friends, I signed up for facebook the day that my university's .edu email addresses were accepted by it, as was the requirements early on. I (embarrassingly) took selfies before this could be done with a phone. But I have become increasingly critical of technology, as I become increasingly aware of its consequences for our privacy, our social lives, the way we access and relate to information, etc. New technologies should lead to serious critical dialogue, and that dialogue is often shut off by techies who simply slander any questioners with the "Luddite" label, as if all questioning is simply behind the times. If anything, it's ahead of the times.
9
If a drone hovers outside my windows, invading my privacy, I'm assuredly going to whack it with a baseball bat, or big stick, Teddy Roosevelt-style. End of discussion. There's already enough air traffic without these oversized mosquitoes adding to it.
13
I spoke an RC airplane user on the beach recently. Very cool, inexpensive craft made mostly of foam, with a 5ft wingspan, it had a camera in the nose, and was beautiful to watch in flight, including standing still in the air when headed into a very strong wind. Just throwing out a vote for traditional flying.
1
It's not necessarily paranoia, perhaps just annoyance over the invasion of privacy and peace when they fly over your home, in particular. Not nearly as annoying as the helicopters that routinely fly over my apartment in San Diego's Hillcrest neighborhood - often late at night. Just too much invasiveness for me.
9
The facile dismissal of the use of these things to carry a bomb ("Good luck with that.") is troubling - troubling that anybody, let alone a an associate professor, could be so thoughtless. One might say: well, let's allow that you have ruled out "football stadiums from the parking lot" - are there any other places where people gather? Well, maybe not. Actually, I'm not too worried about that use of them anyway.
I see them as another toy for people with time on their hands - they will definitely cause a lot of annoyance, both inadvertently, and as part of some people's fun - they will also definitely cause some serious damage, including deaths, there is no way around that - ranging from accidents to pranks to actual malice. That's not a possibility, that's guaranteed.
But we live with the automobile, so having another item to add to the toll of death and destruction won't change our lives all that much.
What I'm waiting to hear about are the drone-fights, like they say there are places where they have kite battles - you can see them as informal, out over the high school sports fields at night - or commercialized, by the same people who do that paintball thing.
When I first heard about these private drones, I imagined a movie about drone battles - it takes place in the suburbs, and part of the motivation is to spy on a girl sunbathing in her once-private backyard - so the name of the movie can be "The Battle of Britanny". Money in the bank.
I see them as another toy for people with time on their hands - they will definitely cause a lot of annoyance, both inadvertently, and as part of some people's fun - they will also definitely cause some serious damage, including deaths, there is no way around that - ranging from accidents to pranks to actual malice. That's not a possibility, that's guaranteed.
But we live with the automobile, so having another item to add to the toll of death and destruction won't change our lives all that much.
What I'm waiting to hear about are the drone-fights, like they say there are places where they have kite battles - you can see them as informal, out over the high school sports fields at night - or commercialized, by the same people who do that paintball thing.
When I first heard about these private drones, I imagined a movie about drone battles - it takes place in the suburbs, and part of the motivation is to spy on a girl sunbathing in her once-private backyard - so the name of the movie can be "The Battle of Britanny". Money in the bank.
9
The public apprehension of drones has a lot to do with their perception of the drone as a weapon that allows our government to move in on a possible suspected terrorist and take out his entire family. This weaponized version of a model radio-controlled airplane has taken over how we feel about them.
I've had friends who flew model helicopters that bobbed and weaved around a city park and were capable of hovering right in front of you three or four feet in the air. At this time, back in the 1990s, they had not been associated with killing. Photography perhaps, but not assassination. They were seen as an inexpensive way of getting aerial photos without hiring a plane.
The media has sensationalized model airplanes, helicopters and toy "drones" way out of proportion to the level of dangerous that they represent. "RC" model planes have been around for half a century or longer. The most common injury is getting fingers cut by propellers.
We also have model rockets that actually achieve altitudes of 1,000 feet sold in toy stores. These are toys that have done a great deal to sustain interest in science and aeronautics and have caught the interest of aspiring astronauts. They only become dangerous when some fanciful reporter decides that they are, rarely otherwise. We have become a nation of worry-warts about anything that is not in our personal experience and much that is. The next thing will be kites. Actually, the media has already gotten hold of this, too.
I've had friends who flew model helicopters that bobbed and weaved around a city park and were capable of hovering right in front of you three or four feet in the air. At this time, back in the 1990s, they had not been associated with killing. Photography perhaps, but not assassination. They were seen as an inexpensive way of getting aerial photos without hiring a plane.
The media has sensationalized model airplanes, helicopters and toy "drones" way out of proportion to the level of dangerous that they represent. "RC" model planes have been around for half a century or longer. The most common injury is getting fingers cut by propellers.
We also have model rockets that actually achieve altitudes of 1,000 feet sold in toy stores. These are toys that have done a great deal to sustain interest in science and aeronautics and have caught the interest of aspiring astronauts. They only become dangerous when some fanciful reporter decides that they are, rarely otherwise. We have become a nation of worry-warts about anything that is not in our personal experience and much that is. The next thing will be kites. Actually, the media has already gotten hold of this, too.
3
You said: "These are toys that have done a great deal to sustain interest in science and aeronautics and have caught the interest of aspiring astronauts." Really? In which country? Not here. The U.S. no longer has a space program. It only has weapons programs. And the U.S. barely has a science program as most scientists are from overseas, who then are kicked out to bring their knowledge elsewhere.
I wouldn't characterize concern about drones as paranoia, but rather as common sense. Just look at General Aviation, where private pilots who fly small planes for kicks on the weekends cause death and injury every day. In fact, GA is responsible for almost 90% of all aviation fatalities in the U.S. each year. (And 50% of all the lead in the atmosphere.) It's the most dangerous way to travel, though you don't hear much about that. Multiply that by thousands of thrill seekers flying these things outside people's windows, over active construction zones, into flying airplanes, into people's faces, and you see how much damage and dismay they could cause—and that's just in the hands of regular people out for a lark, not terrorists. Look at the actions of the author himself, clueless about what he's doing yet flying a drone for the very first time in an extremely crowded city where the potential for accident, injury or "incidental" peeping is quite high. This article is a shining example of why these things need to be strictly regulated.
13
I live in the US drone capital, San Diego. I've had beach walks destroyed by drones on the beach, and I've woken to a drone hovering over my backyard for 30 minutes. (Their grinding buzz is one of the most physically disturbing sounds I've ever experienced.) Here in San Diego, we have a special pond for miniature boat enthusiasts and a field designated for hobby planes, so if you want to have fun, start lobbying for an area where your drone won't pollute my ears or eyes.
20
I am an advocate of legislation being enacted of strict liability for all damage that a drone causes and for people to pop them out of the sky for trespassing. These things should be relegated to the park like model boats are in Central Park.
Our paranoia about drones says that we don't want to be surveilled and/or filmed without our consent, by public or private entities. Such as yourself.
I know that doesn't sound complicated or perverse enough to be the basis of an essay in the Times, but it's the truth.
I know that doesn't sound complicated or perverse enough to be the basis of an essay in the Times, but it's the truth.
3
I spent a small fortune in landscaping so that my wife and I could have privacy to swim in the nude in our backyard pool. For us this is one of life's small pleasures, so we invested a nice chunk of our retirement savings into it. I suspect that there are literally millions of people who have done the same thing.
As you can imagine, every kid from the local high school is going to be flying over, not looking for us, but hoping instead to catch their girlfriends or boyfriends in compromising situations, especially those with swimming pools. As if this were not enough, there will be an endless armada of delivery drones from Amazon, looking to deliver packages into nice suburbs so that billionaire Jeff Bezos can make even more money.
Invasion of privacy from the NSA will be nothing compared to what's coming. Your toy is about as welcome as a skin rash.
As you can imagine, every kid from the local high school is going to be flying over, not looking for us, but hoping instead to catch their girlfriends or boyfriends in compromising situations, especially those with swimming pools. As if this were not enough, there will be an endless armada of delivery drones from Amazon, looking to deliver packages into nice suburbs so that billionaire Jeff Bezos can make even more money.
Invasion of privacy from the NSA will be nothing compared to what's coming. Your toy is about as welcome as a skin rash.
4
Nice snapshot of where we are now with small drones. Like others, I've given a lot of thought to how the technology is likely to evolve. I've found one inevitable direction particularly intriguing: smaller size and longer battery life. (I've written about it and created art about it, at squeezeshot.org.) Imagine drones the size of mosquitoes. Imagine such devices becoming commonplace, as ubiquitous as cellphones are now. Imagine how hard (impossible?) it will be to regulate their use. Imagine all the mutual observation and snooping that will go on. Anyone will be able to observe anyone or anything, anywhere, at any time, without being seen. The implications are enormous, re our privacy, secrecy, and security; our sense of self and community; our relationships at every level, with loved ones, neighbors, colleagues, and the wider world. The prospect is exciting, and daunting. A brave new world, indeed, coming soon?
1
The debate on the sovereignty of airspace has been ongoing since the first balloons took to the sky. Where do you draw the line between hovering a small drone or RC helicopter in a yard--which is flying--to taking it up to 100 to 200 feet and maybe a mile away? Does flying over terrain that is not yours, or public constitute some form of trespass? Knotty legal questions regarding airspace that have been debating through the 1900s are now being wrestled with again. As an interesting anecdote, the Kansas attorney general attempted to ban the serving of alcohol on flights that were laterally over the confines of the borders of the state. This measure didn't go through, but you can see the connection to airspace and the ground below is tenuous, and a legal and civil matter that is in constant dispute, both domestically and internationally.
1
Listing the drawbacks of drones in an objective way seems so inclusive and clinical: loss of privacy, threats to safety and threats to aviation. But the drone is an extension of the human who flies it-- it is not the drone, it is the person. Expressed more viscerally- a drone in the hands of a sociopath, a 14 year old with undeveloped impulse control, a fool, an adrenalin seeking person, a stalker, a person with a grudge against an individual, a class of people, society. Now how poetic and charming does unrestricted drone use seem?
The subject of the drone's interest cannot do much of anything in personal defense. Multiply that if the drone is outside your apartment building, or in the airspace of the approach path at your airport.
This is not being a luddite. This is bad-- creepy and inevitably a disaster is coming.
When you are at the airport you will want the birds chased off the runway and the laser pointer fools in the nearby houses to be arrested and the pilot knowledgeable about any downdrafts affecting the take off...but the drones and their operators...what will you want about them? Will the trill of the motor and the arial choreography seem so enchanting then?
The subject of the drone's interest cannot do much of anything in personal defense. Multiply that if the drone is outside your apartment building, or in the airspace of the approach path at your airport.
This is not being a luddite. This is bad-- creepy and inevitably a disaster is coming.
When you are at the airport you will want the birds chased off the runway and the laser pointer fools in the nearby houses to be arrested and the pilot knowledgeable about any downdrafts affecting the take off...but the drones and their operators...what will you want about them? Will the trill of the motor and the arial choreography seem so enchanting then?
4
Weird article. The author gets on the right track for a moment, observing that hordes of neophyte drone pilots might be a problem. But I guess this wasn't the direction he was aiming to take his conclusion. So instead, technology averse luddites are "paranoid" about a sky full of drones. Symptomatic is his laughing off of flying bombs. In what way would a flight time of 5 to 10 minutes makes such an action impossible? What's next? The only thing that can stop a bad guy with an armed drone, is a good guy with an armed drone?
4
Drones need to be certified and insured, and "pilots" need to be licensed, just as they would be for a motorized vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle) operating on the street.
People's "fear" of drones has nothing to do with paranoia, it is common sense that these things be regulated to ensure their safe operation, and that pilots be held legally accountable for their use in public.
People's "fear" of drones has nothing to do with paranoia, it is common sense that these things be regulated to ensure their safe operation, and that pilots be held legally accountable for their use in public.
5
Drones are dangerous in a variety of objective ways. As a result, concern or fear of drones is not paranoia.
4
I have a large wooded back yard, home to transient deer, foxes, coyotes, racoons and ither animals attracted to the water in my creek and my shrubbery. I regularly see birds ranging from cardinals, hummingbirds, blue birds, jays, robins, finches to hawks and owls. I close the blinds to keep the sun out, not for privacy.
My neighbors on the other side of my wilderness have relatively small back yards, with maybe 20 foot clearings where they set off arial fireworks (illegal in my state). I've found their debris (what goes up must come down) very close to my house. They're clever enough to listen to police scanners and stop while a patrol car is in the area.
The point is, I expect one of them will eventually get a drone and show the same lack of respect for laws and public safety, not to mention my privacy and property.
Before it is too late we need to get drones and their operators licensed.
My wildlife and I do not need or want an invasion, no matter how "cool" someone thinks it is.
My neighbors on the other side of my wilderness have relatively small back yards, with maybe 20 foot clearings where they set off arial fireworks (illegal in my state). I've found their debris (what goes up must come down) very close to my house. They're clever enough to listen to police scanners and stop while a patrol car is in the area.
The point is, I expect one of them will eventually get a drone and show the same lack of respect for laws and public safety, not to mention my privacy and property.
Before it is too late we need to get drones and their operators licensed.
My wildlife and I do not need or want an invasion, no matter how "cool" someone thinks it is.
4
I don't think you Easterners have a clue about how many people in California have private back yards, where they swim and sun scantily clad or in their birthday suits. (Google Earth Fresno, if you don't understand.) These back yards are no longer private if anyone can fly one of these drones overhead.
So the concern out here with these drones is privacy. Oh.., and crashing planes.
So the concern out here with these drones is privacy. Oh.., and crashing planes.
3
You call it "democratized" aviation, but it is really free-for-all, laissez faire aviation that is unregulated and unsafe. This is a typical misuse of the word democracy to support industry de-regulation. Democracy is a form of government and refers particularly to the system of elections and representation, not to the ability of anyone to do whatever they want whenever they want.
9
Only 18 comments, but the list of possible problems with misuse of drones is quite long. I detest the thought of more noise in my neighborhood. We already must weather the latest trend of fireworks almost weekly to celebrate anything. To add to the list of issues, I worry about the effects of drone use on wildlife, especially birds. I, too, have considered how to respond to a drone that invades my air space (legally owned and controlled by the FAA). Where is that article about the efficacy of shotgun silencers!
4
You have just begun to hear about drones - only the beginning tip of a huge iceberg of drones. Just wait until the price of missile-armed drones gets low enough - it will not be long - and the terrorists of the world can afford to buy them and hire operators. Guess which country in the West will be on the receiving end of most of them! This is a good time to be old......
4
I read this article closely and I still don't know what "our paranoia about drones says about us." I agree with other readers that the use of the term "paranoia" is inappropriate and smug. My main concern with this article is that it says nothing, really, and was dressed up with a misleading headline by an editor who thus abused the trust of the magazine's readers. I hope this is not a trend in the New York Times magazine.
4
A too-sophisicated argument for another form of visual and sound pollution. No technophobe here, but my dogs, nearby goats, horses and the birds I and many in my neighborhood regularly feed and try to nurture are. I live where I live for the skyline and peace it affords me. I will take up "skeet" shooting the first time I see a drone over my property. If that means I am a luddite, then so be it, but I don't believe it does. I do not want to see or hear them; it's that simple. And I believe that is my right on my land. Not trying to make legal case but I do not have to adapt just so you can play with noisy, intrusive toys.
8
As a pilot of real aircraft I have seen this reaction many times when small manned aircraft are the subject. We have an instinctive fear of things above us that we can't see without craning our necks. Drones increase the number of such incidents. We need to grow eyes on the top of our heads, or maybe have smart phone accessories that map all aerial traffic.
7
(a) They aren't drones, they're radio-controlled helicopters with 4 rotors,
(b) They won't invade privacy nearly as much as smartphones already have.
(c) The slippery slope fallacy is shopworn.
(d) Prohibition won't work, nor will draconian regulation.
(e) Vaccines don't cause autism, either.
(b) They won't invade privacy nearly as much as smartphones already have.
(c) The slippery slope fallacy is shopworn.
(d) Prohibition won't work, nor will draconian regulation.
(e) Vaccines don't cause autism, either.
19
Smartphones provide benefits that make most people overlook privacy concerns. Drones are simply someone else's toy....
3
1. A drone is a remotely piloted vehicle.
2. Comparing drones to smartphones is apples to oranges.
3. Any fallacy is by definition useless. The degree to which a slope is slippery always speaks for itself.
4. Nobody has suggested prohibition, or execution (Dracos.)
5. Lists can backfire:)
2. Comparing drones to smartphones is apples to oranges.
3. Any fallacy is by definition useless. The degree to which a slope is slippery always speaks for itself.
4. Nobody has suggested prohibition, or execution (Dracos.)
5. Lists can backfire:)
One out of five ain't bad.
Well written article and describes exactly what it feels like to fly a drone. They are great fun and very useful.
2
So you like drones.
Got it.
And everyone who doesn't like drones is a an ignorant fool who is frightened of technology.
Got it.
Got it.
And everyone who doesn't like drones is a an ignorant fool who is frightened of technology.
Got it.
37
The professor needs to focus on things he is skilled in. Looking at his resume and contributions to other periodicals, I am at a loss to identify any area involving critical thinking.
Paranoia? A drone recently landed on the white house lawn after the pilot lost control. Although the direct risk from drones might be minor, the potential for rare but catastrophic events are what scare people. I am not one to minimize the risks that are the major causes of concern, e.g., cars, accidents, guns, etc., but calling feeling about drones paranoia is irritatingly dismissive. As drones get cheaper and more powerful, it is likely children will be able to control them, adding to the potential for harm:
- unintended interactions with cars
- unintended interactions with flight vehicles
- extended use of drones as weapons
- extended use of drones as surveillance
- injuries from falling drones
- injuries from propellers/propulsion
- unintended interactions with cars
- unintended interactions with flight vehicles
- extended use of drones as weapons
- extended use of drones as surveillance
- injuries from falling drones
- injuries from propellers/propulsion
39
This is not to say that drones might not have great benefits, e.g., mapping and surveillance of remote or dangerous areas, it is just that with all things science, there are usually some downside with the upside.
2
Rather than worrying about rare "catastrophic" events, I suggest we worry about common catastrophic events, such as guns, lack of health insurance, pollution, vehicle accidents, infection outbreaks, cigarettes, and supreme court decisions.
I understand that I do a disservice to understanding risk in these few sentences, since a fuller understanding requires understanding our own actions, the interests and actions of others, the weight of the resulting risk, the potential upsides to the risk, and the likelihood that an outcome might actually occur.
1
You might consider learning airspace classification before you fly and write. You were most likely in Class B airspace where the FAA prohibits drones. Flouting simple rules hurts the rest of us who don't want the FAA and state and local governments (like the NYC Council) clamping down.
20
Great essay! Your last sentences in your last paragraph drive the point home.
4
Will drone watching overtake bird watching as a recreational activity?
Sure, we can all watch the poor birds fly into the drones.
All new technologies are met with some fear, some awe, and a whole lot of quizzical "I-don't-know-what-to-make-of-it" attitude. The automobile was received with all of the above emotions although looking back one might wonder why. However, we do regulate many gizmos and technologies for the obvious reason that they are more prone to abuse. Nuclear technology comes to mind.
So bottom line: I am still unsure where I stand on the drone issue, although there is a part of me that is concerned about its rapid dissemination in the marketplace.
So bottom line: I am still unsure where I stand on the drone issue, although there is a part of me that is concerned about its rapid dissemination in the marketplace.
3
the near sky is beautiful to look at. I hate the thought of all these small drones obscuring and detracting from it. We've cluttered up (necessarily in many cases) much of our land. Our oceans are increasingly filled with plastic and other garbage. Our airplanes noisily fill the upper sky we see. Only the near sky is left, Apart from the potential accidents and spying, can't we just leave this space for us to be in without putting stuff into it?
33
I would worry about this when drones become as noisy, common and large as helicopters. Meanwhile, perhaps we can regulate helicopters.
1
I don't think I'm paranoid about drones. I just don't understand why this writer and others like him think it's okay for them to disturb my quiet enjoyment, not to mention potentially endangering me and others on the ground with misguided or falling drones. Does everyone get to do whatever they want, just because they can pony up the cash for this noisy toy?
68
I wonder what my old friend, the late author Robert Sheckley, would have to say about this. Read his story "The Watchbird" for a lesson in the hazards and absurdity of always being watched.
5
A friend of mine had a drone that he was flying down his street when a neighbor of his knocked it down with a snow shovel. (Obviously, it wasn't flying very high-only about 6 feet). The drone broke. The neighbor refused to pay for it, saying my friend had no right to be 'spying' on his neighbors. My friend didn't pursue it. End of story.
I had a hard time feeling sorry for my friend. I was sort of ok with the neighbor's action. I don't think I'd want a neighbor of mine flying one right past my windows. Even if I'm just sitting there watching TV or something, it's still creepy.
I had a hard time feeling sorry for my friend. I was sort of ok with the neighbor's action. I don't think I'd want a neighbor of mine flying one right past my windows. Even if I'm just sitting there watching TV or something, it's still creepy.
50
How often do drones look in your windows? Are you that famous?
Another reason for our paranoia might be, perhaps, the regular reporting of what it’s like to live with threatening drones in the sky if you live in Gaza, or Pakistan, or Yemen. Children, and adults, hearing that terrible buzzing know that death can soon follow at any moment. While we in this country don’t have to worry about the particular fear and misery that governments cause in the interest of defeating what they call terrorism, knowing that drones can be fitted with lethal weapons, and that people can die by remote controllers thousands of miles away, is unsettling at best.
19
As drones get heavier and more powerful it make sense to add graduated operating and licensing requirements based on the risks they pose. Once a drone gets large enough where an operator or mechanical failure could cause serious injury or loss of life it's time to get put restrictions on their operation.
Put it this way, a 10lb drone is the heft of a small bowling ball. At what point would you not mind if a bowling ball fell on you or someone in your family from 400' (the current legal max guideline), which is around the 40th floor of a building? We'll always need operating restrictions around aircraft, but more regulation should be scaled based on some practical rules. I hope that's what the FAA is trying to do.
Put it this way, a 10lb drone is the heft of a small bowling ball. At what point would you not mind if a bowling ball fell on you or someone in your family from 400' (the current legal max guideline), which is around the 40th floor of a building? We'll always need operating restrictions around aircraft, but more regulation should be scaled based on some practical rules. I hope that's what the FAA is trying to do.
26
I'm not sure if the author is old enough to remember the "wonder" pesticide of DDT -- that also had huge unintended consequences.
See, I'm not worried so much about Big Government using drones (although it does not fill me with comfort either). I'm worried about my local Barney Fife using one to "monitor" my town for "criminals". Don't we already live in ENOUGH of a police-state?
Or worse, how businesses will use -- no, abuse -- these things. I had a contractor tell me, with breathless anticipation, that he knew a company that could fly around my house, take pictures of it and use it to show me how my house would look with new windows, etc. I've heard that real estate companies are using these things. How long before they do that without permission in order to sell you stuff?
Really? No one can see the possible invasion of privacy in that? See, there are a host of "unintended consequences" for every new technology. And yes, I have a HUGE problem with the privacy-invasion of smart phones. And not just the cameras. Most people haven't a clue about how much data these things are collecting from users. I don't use one for that very reason.
See, just because most Americans are hugely ignorant about the technology they are using doesn't mean there aren't thoughtful people thinking about how that tech is being abused.
But more importantly, one should consider that that there will be dishonest, immoral, unethical people using that technology, too!
See, I'm not worried so much about Big Government using drones (although it does not fill me with comfort either). I'm worried about my local Barney Fife using one to "monitor" my town for "criminals". Don't we already live in ENOUGH of a police-state?
Or worse, how businesses will use -- no, abuse -- these things. I had a contractor tell me, with breathless anticipation, that he knew a company that could fly around my house, take pictures of it and use it to show me how my house would look with new windows, etc. I've heard that real estate companies are using these things. How long before they do that without permission in order to sell you stuff?
Really? No one can see the possible invasion of privacy in that? See, there are a host of "unintended consequences" for every new technology. And yes, I have a HUGE problem with the privacy-invasion of smart phones. And not just the cameras. Most people haven't a clue about how much data these things are collecting from users. I don't use one for that very reason.
See, just because most Americans are hugely ignorant about the technology they are using doesn't mean there aren't thoughtful people thinking about how that tech is being abused.
But more importantly, one should consider that that there will be dishonest, immoral, unethical people using that technology, too!
32
Remember that totally banning DDT had unintended consequences too - an upsurge in malaria in Africa.
Paranoia means unreasonable fear. Being suspicious of a drone hovering over your yard, when you know perfectly well that your neighbors are not in their yard flying it for fun, is not unreasonable at all. There is a park where I live where boys of all ages come on Sundays, to fly their remote-control airplanes in a large, open field. Some planes are made to resemble actual historical models; others are more utilitarian. just wings, fuselage, tail and a motor. It's fun to watch because it's Sunday, in the park, and everyone knows the rules. Implicit in this quiet order is that flying your plane (or drone) in your neighborhood, at any time you please, would not be welcome. So there we are. If rabbits and squirrels could devise a way to defeat aerial threats from winged raptors, they surely would. As homo sapiens, we can, and we will. The first un-neighborly drone to appear over my yard will get the wheels turning. The second will become a trophy to show off at summer barbecues. That's not paranoia, that's common sense. We still live in a world where we have a say in who comes to visit, and when. I don't care in the least about the author's need to invade others' personal space in the name of "democratization of aviation." Want to fly something? Join a club, or just go to the park.
34
Mr. Hamilton (by the way, I thought you had absented these regions), your little ticked off essay raises the question: how much space do you own? How much space around yourself are you entitled to control? Is there a 1,000 ft. bubble that accompanies you ever step you take?
As a photographer, I encounter this issue frequently. Taking photos from the streets is not illegal and it is not intrusive, so long as the purpose is not to capture someone inside their house. Likewise, I don't think taking a photo of someone in their backyard is illegal, but they would better be left alone, in my view. There is a presumption of some level, but not complete, privacy.
Photographers cannot use the images of people's faces for commercial purposes, other than news photographs, without their permission. This usually involves some sort of payment or exchange, even if nominal. Typically, motion picture producers pay to use the outside of stores and houses with payments individually negotiated.
Like you, I don't want a drone coming around peeking in my windows. Once on vacation on St. Thomas, a police helicopter made a hover at window level in to rented house at just around the hours of evening bathing. They apparently knew when to come looking. Since the view otherwise faced the blank ocean, curtains were not normally drawn. It would be much easier now with little drones, but I think it is not something so threatening that we can't find ways of dealing with it and limiting them.
Doug Terry
As a photographer, I encounter this issue frequently. Taking photos from the streets is not illegal and it is not intrusive, so long as the purpose is not to capture someone inside their house. Likewise, I don't think taking a photo of someone in their backyard is illegal, but they would better be left alone, in my view. There is a presumption of some level, but not complete, privacy.
Photographers cannot use the images of people's faces for commercial purposes, other than news photographs, without their permission. This usually involves some sort of payment or exchange, even if nominal. Typically, motion picture producers pay to use the outside of stores and houses with payments individually negotiated.
Like you, I don't want a drone coming around peeking in my windows. Once on vacation on St. Thomas, a police helicopter made a hover at window level in to rented house at just around the hours of evening bathing. They apparently knew when to come looking. Since the view otherwise faced the blank ocean, curtains were not normally drawn. It would be much easier now with little drones, but I think it is not something so threatening that we can't find ways of dealing with it and limiting them.
Doug Terry
"Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep ..." Buffalo Springfield. Here's my challenge. Society tends to embrace much of "gee whiz" technology with reckless abandon and naiveté, but very little forethought. The nuclear bomb being a prime example. It's only after we open Pandora's Box and start experiencing "blowback" in terms of counter productivity or negative consequences do we begin to question the error of our ways. Unfortunately that kind of acknowledgement often arrives too late. On the surface recreational drones seem benign enough, just another remote control toy with more sophisticated capabilities. But in the hands of an imaginative terrorist, diabolical psychopath or errant "goofball" they become disasters waiting to happen or weapons for some heinous purpose. Such scenarios are not beyond the realm of possibility. As artificial intelligence and automation take on an ever increasing role in our lives the cognitive ability of humans to always do the "right thing" is less assured. I'm not for banning recreational drones outright, but they do need to be heavily regulated with severe penalties for noncompliance and they need to have some sort of "fail safe" mechanism that prevent accidents, misuse or human error.
11
about injury. I see to much anger about everything in our country.
And to the gentlemen in another post who said vaccines don't cause
autism then how come the Vaccine Court of the US has paid out 2.5
billion dollars to children with autism? I am a producer and some of the
quad copter footage I have seen is magnificent and exciting.