There has to be some common sense out there. Cars need to be licensed and planes have all kinds of rules imposed by the FAA. Here's the rub. Gun toters say that a gun is unlike an automobile in that a gun is allowed unfettered access under the second amendment. So what happens when (as another commenter pointed out), you mount a gun on a drone. Does it become an "arm" that Wayne Lapierre and his buddies say you cannot, by God, regulate?
12
I'm dreaming of a drone Christmas. Tiny drones tucked into stockings. Bigger drones beneath the tree. A drone for Dad, another for Junior, a third for your cool tween niece.
Rechristening a "remote-control toy helicopter" a "drone" suggests that, soon after unwrapping his present on Christmas morning, your teenage son will be executing lethal missile strikes in Yemen and in Syria. It's Christmas morning and our kid wants to fly her drone RIGHT NOW..!
And thus we wade into a major catastrophe.
Rechristening a "remote-control toy helicopter" a "drone" suggests that, soon after unwrapping his present on Christmas morning, your teenage son will be executing lethal missile strikes in Yemen and in Syria. It's Christmas morning and our kid wants to fly her drone RIGHT NOW..!
And thus we wade into a major catastrophe.
3
Just wait until there are more 'drones with guns'. Will they fall under the second amendment?
16
Hey! Give us a break. The commander in chief of the U.S armed forces and with the key to set off nuclear bombs doesn't have to take any tests. Next thing you'll want is some minimal level of competency to run for POTUS.
9
Next big market: Anti-Drone Missile Launchers. Sure enough, at least one company is already working on "domestic drone countermeasures":
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/company-to-make-antidro...
That 2013 article also wildly underestimated how fast the drone market would grow: "...by 2020, American skies will have up to 30,000 drones operating domestically...."
Will this become a Second Amendment thing too?
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/company-to-make-antidro...
That 2013 article also wildly underestimated how fast the drone market would grow: "...by 2020, American skies will have up to 30,000 drones operating domestically...."
Will this become a Second Amendment thing too?
5
If recreational drones can go from reconnaissance on neighbors , to having drone firefights between them; it becomes a 2nd Amendment issue . The NRA steps in, and the sky's the limit.
2
Guns and drones- the USA should not become the 21st century "wild west". Isn't there a "sheriff" in town?!
3
I own a couple of UAVs. Let me dispel some MYTHS.
1. my drone and thousands like it will not fly higher than 50 feet within five miles of an airport.
2. My drone and thousands like it will not fly AT ALL within 25 miles of Washington DC.
3. Have you ever tried to take a long distance photo with your cell phone camera? Because the last majority of these consumer drones have cameras with a tiny little lens that could not pick out a person beyond a distance of 100 feet.
People need to calm down and be less afraid.....of everything, except the obscene number of unregulated firearms in this country. So far, consumer camera drones have killed NOBODY.
1. my drone and thousands like it will not fly higher than 50 feet within five miles of an airport.
2. My drone and thousands like it will not fly AT ALL within 25 miles of Washington DC.
3. Have you ever tried to take a long distance photo with your cell phone camera? Because the last majority of these consumer drones have cameras with a tiny little lens that could not pick out a person beyond a distance of 100 feet.
People need to calm down and be less afraid.....of everything, except the obscene number of unregulated firearms in this country. So far, consumer camera drones have killed NOBODY.
18
Glad you added the handgun line because that is what I was thinking the entire time I was reading your argument.
How about a the 2016 Drone and Gun Act. Has it ring to it. We can kill two birds with one stone if you'll pardon the mangled pun.
How about a the 2016 Drone and Gun Act. Has it ring to it. We can kill two birds with one stone if you'll pardon the mangled pun.
3
'I think I speak for all of us when I say that we do not want to get in between a child and his ToyJoy F8 Space Trek RC Nano Drone.'
Until some kid manages to put out his eye, or someone else's eye.
Until some kid manages to put out his eye, or someone else's eye.
4
Another example of the overwhelming stupidity of the people in this country and those they elect. Disasters just waiting to happen, like carrying guns in public.
3
Why do I feel as if the emerging drone market is really an NRA conspiracy to get me to buy a gun?
9
Once you can buy a drone with a gun attached, people will say they have a right to own and operate one under the Second Amendment.
2
Why is it illegal to fly over a sports stadium but not over my backyard? What ever happened to privacy?
17
I'm at my drawing table now, planning to produce and market the anti-drone gun, which will be air compressor powered, shooting metal tipped plastic bullets bullets in rapid fire mode from a long barrel. It won't cost any more than about $2000. Oh, maybe a better idea would be a mini laser device.......
5
>But squirrels don’t get in the way of passenger planes.
Wrong. There are these things in the air we call birds. And by scientific estimates they are thought to number around 200 to 400 billion (with a "B") compared to single digit millions (with an "M") drones. Birds hit planes all the time. Birds cause damage to airplane engines and jets all the time. But the number of catastrophes caused by birds is so low it is amazing.
Aircraft are designed with multiple redundancies to survive problems caused by birds with such things as redundant engines (more than one), hydraulics, electrical systems, etc. If a drone were to get sucked into a jet engine, yes it would most likely disable that engine. But that doesn't equate to deaths with birds and it doesn't equate to deaths with drones.
We all know about Chesley Sully Sullenberger whose plane was downed by birds. This was one of the very rare situations where birds got sucked into both engines and depleted the available redundancies. But this is very rare. For a drone to do the same, there would need to be two operators operating two drones and positioning them so accurately as to have them both enter the jets. Maybe we should be regulating birds considering they post a threat to manned aircraft nearly 100,000 times greater than drones.
Wrong. There are these things in the air we call birds. And by scientific estimates they are thought to number around 200 to 400 billion (with a "B") compared to single digit millions (with an "M") drones. Birds hit planes all the time. Birds cause damage to airplane engines and jets all the time. But the number of catastrophes caused by birds is so low it is amazing.
Aircraft are designed with multiple redundancies to survive problems caused by birds with such things as redundant engines (more than one), hydraulics, electrical systems, etc. If a drone were to get sucked into a jet engine, yes it would most likely disable that engine. But that doesn't equate to deaths with birds and it doesn't equate to deaths with drones.
We all know about Chesley Sully Sullenberger whose plane was downed by birds. This was one of the very rare situations where birds got sucked into both engines and depleted the available redundancies. But this is very rare. For a drone to do the same, there would need to be two operators operating two drones and positioning them so accurately as to have them both enter the jets. Maybe we should be regulating birds considering they post a threat to manned aircraft nearly 100,000 times greater than drones.
2
I totally agree on the insanity of drones here in America but thankfully the drone problem is much worse for members of Al Queada and Isis.
Maybe if we all bought drones (the picture taking kind) and flew them regularly over our congresspeople's and senators' homes--clouds of them day and night--they'd actually consider doing something about it. Or are these covered under some amendment...of course bearing arms means you have to have them in hand, but does the remote count as that? And is a camera considered a weapon?
Meanwhile, I'm enjoying comtemplating regulating squirrels. This has possibility!
Meanwhile, I'm enjoying comtemplating regulating squirrels. This has possibility!
3
i'm looking for investors, because I'm pretty sure I can have my Rinco Handy Pocket RC Jammer out by next Christmas.
That should secure the R&D money for /2: the Rinco Dandy, which'll seize control, turn the thing around, and fly it straight through the owner's front window.
For the /3, though, it's gonna be a while before we can mount phasers.
That should secure the R&D money for /2: the Rinco Dandy, which'll seize control, turn the thing around, and fly it straight through the owner's front window.
For the /3, though, it's gonna be a while before we can mount phasers.
4
Gail, it may be safer to wait until Congress gets changed - radically changed - before we regulate drones. This Congress isn't capable of putting toilet paper in the dispenser let alone something as simple passing sane laws. Be careful of what you wish for.
10
Drones, like cars and guns, should be licensed and insured. Any device that can inflict harm on the general public should be licensed and insured.
10
I'm betting against Amazon and others using drones for package delivery. The method is too insecure. Gail mentions the guy who shot one out of the sky over his house after feeling his privacy is invaded. I think the anti-droners will find too many ways to hijack or destroy commercial drones to make this feasible.
6
Drones and Planes. Bad combo. Which leaves one to wonder why several airports have gift shops that are selling them. The mind boggles.
5
The problems that drones can create, is easily understood by persons like myself, who have spent many years working in the design and manufacture of military UAV's. In spite of some of them being highly classified, they sometimes decide to land on their own, in places where they should not have been. Some of them have stealth capability too, making it very difficult to know where they are. It does not take a lot of imagination to presume that they could be armed as well.
The government should have regulated these drones years ago, but as is typical, they never think ahead. Only when disaster happens do they swing into action.
Never forget that there is no limit to the size of a UAV (Drone).
The government should have regulated these drones years ago, but as is typical, they never think ahead. Only when disaster happens do they swing into action.
Never forget that there is no limit to the size of a UAV (Drone).
7
Having said all of that, what this article fails to mention (and demonstrates poor journalistic practice) is that private industry has developed solutions to many of these issues. There are companies that sell technology to manufacturers and individual users to allow them to fly drones safely, and prevent them from flying near airports where planes are descending and ascending into the same airspace that drones typically fly within. No recreational drones pose a threat to aircraft cruising at 30,000 feet.
The same technology also prevents them from flying near prisons, stadia and many other areas they should not fly. It would be good to see some reporting of the solutions currently in the marketplace and help educate the readership that the situation is not as dire as the fear mongers would have you believe and that the industry is also concerned about the situation and is actively developing solutions. Somehow that is conveniently absent from reporting, most likely because danger sells newspapers (or eyeballs reading an article) and safety does not.
The same technology also prevents them from flying near prisons, stadia and many other areas they should not fly. It would be good to see some reporting of the solutions currently in the marketplace and help educate the readership that the situation is not as dire as the fear mongers would have you believe and that the industry is also concerned about the situation and is actively developing solutions. Somehow that is conveniently absent from reporting, most likely because danger sells newspapers (or eyeballs reading an article) and safety does not.
1
Really? I would like to hear just how this "technology" prevents people from flying drones near prisons, sports games, airports, and so forth. Just how does that work?
4
@EH in NY:
You might not be so confident in self-regulation if one flew in your window. Let's not even talk about 9/11.
You might not be so confident in self-regulation if one flew in your window. Let's not even talk about 9/11.
3
Drones are a hazard to aircraft and a disaster waiting to happen.
This is a big issue over densely populated regions of our country. The FAA introduced NextGen in 2012, which routs air traffic via satellite. To reduce the burden on air traffic controllers, planes are guided into airports using long, low trajectories. Where I live, aircraft pass overhead every 60 to 90 seconds at around 1,000 feet - despite the fact that we are 8 miles from LaGuardia. These flight patterns send low-altitude aircraft over most of Brooklyn. It‘s not difficult to see that these large low-flying jets are at risk of collision with recreational drones and a hazard to the people below. This issue is confronting citizens of cities across the country.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faa-new-air-traffic-control-system-nextgen-c...
Regulating recreational drones is a good start, but a complete solution will require shifting planes to higher altitudes. Many of us living below these flight paths have been suffering - and complaining - about the excruciating noise and noxious emissions from the low approaches. The menace of drones is one more concern added to the mix.
The FAA is not responsive, and our elected representatives seem deaf to the issue.
For more information, see www.nextgennoise.org
This is a big issue over densely populated regions of our country. The FAA introduced NextGen in 2012, which routs air traffic via satellite. To reduce the burden on air traffic controllers, planes are guided into airports using long, low trajectories. Where I live, aircraft pass overhead every 60 to 90 seconds at around 1,000 feet - despite the fact that we are 8 miles from LaGuardia. These flight patterns send low-altitude aircraft over most of Brooklyn. It‘s not difficult to see that these large low-flying jets are at risk of collision with recreational drones and a hazard to the people below. This issue is confronting citizens of cities across the country.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faa-new-air-traffic-control-system-nextgen-c...
Regulating recreational drones is a good start, but a complete solution will require shifting planes to higher altitudes. Many of us living below these flight paths have been suffering - and complaining - about the excruciating noise and noxious emissions from the low approaches. The menace of drones is one more concern added to the mix.
The FAA is not responsive, and our elected representatives seem deaf to the issue.
For more information, see www.nextgennoise.org
8
We are eager to get rid of silence, peace, and all the simple pleasures that cost nothing. sigh ...
Speaking of which, lights out at night? So healthy to get rid of all that waste, but we won't do it.
Speaking of which, lights out at night? So healthy to get rid of all that waste, but we won't do it.
8
They are the only reason I might consider getting a gun - maybe shotgun - or even a paint gun might work. They are just too perfect for a lot of ignoble pursuits: want to rob a home? - just watch for the perfect time. Have a grudge against a neighbor or the police or your school or society?, there's a world of choices, ranging from annoyance to arson.
I have only seen one in a open park area nearby - noisy, although that owner wasn't trying to snoop or harass people or animals, it is disruptive. What happens when you have a dozen people just trying them out? If motorized vehicles aren't allowed on the ground in certain places in order to keep certain areas more tranquil, why should these be unregulated?
I have only seen one in a open park area nearby - noisy, although that owner wasn't trying to snoop or harass people or animals, it is disruptive. What happens when you have a dozen people just trying them out? If motorized vehicles aren't allowed on the ground in certain places in order to keep certain areas more tranquil, why should these be unregulated?
8
In the absence of congress regulating these things, state & local governments should; I really don't want an Amazon or Walmart drone flying around in my neighborhood. Time to load the slingshot with very large potatoes.
9
how long before guns are mounted on drones
thats th end of drive by shooting
welcome fly by shootings
thats th end of drive by shooting
welcome fly by shootings
11
Other than the small ones mostly made of plastic that fit into your palms, all the other drones should be banned. A friend of mine has the small one and a bigger one, the blades of which almost took a few of his fingers while he was futzing around with it.
Registering these darn things does not mean the people operating it will do it responsibly. All registration will do is give the ability to identify the guily when a mishap occurs. It does not guarantee safety.
Registering these darn things does not mean the people operating it will do it responsibly. All registration will do is give the ability to identify the guily when a mishap occurs. It does not guarantee safety.
5
Too late. Unenforceable. All the new laws and regulations will do is criminalize a couple million people.
there are devices available that can commandeer a drone and bring it to a landing at your feet
1
It is common in some areas for people who live in higher floors to keep their curtains open. Now because some dope will have a drone out there they better keep their clothes on or shut the drapes.
3
A drone that can carry a camera can carry a bomb. If the drone can be steered by radio control, it ought to be easy to detonate the bomb by RC. Drones large enough to do that should not be sold without some regulation.
5
Can't anyone fly an ultra-light aircraft without license or safety test? So, the real issue is whether one puts his own life at risk along with everyone else's. There must be some risk to owning a drone, as well as some way to minimize it -- like mandatory liability insurance. Let the market define the risk. Same with guns.
1
Yeah it's a no brainer isn't it, need some regulation and a short intro course for sure, for anything larger than a toy drone, need to apply a bit of commonsense here.
1
driving down a quiet street one sunday morning, i saw a drone hovering over my car
i was so distracted i nearly ran over th drone operator, who smiled a typically moronic smile at me
better luck next time
i was so distracted i nearly ran over th drone operator, who smiled a typically moronic smile at me
better luck next time
6
Given that we are a gun society people could put anti aircraft guns on their propery to protect against drones. After all gun owners need to protect their privacy and so what if they knock out a few airliners along the way.
5
The world of unintended consequences just gets bigger and bigger and more and more elusive. Wisdom has given way to gimmickry and who knows what else. Nora Ephron said, "No matter how cynical I get I just can't keep up." I have no idea what this has to do with technology, but I think it has to do something with it. In any case, I want to give Ms. Ephron a voice here.
6
Hmm, so those things like drones, that could harm innocent bystanders, should require training, licensing, registration, and regulation. But not guns?
4
If Amazon uses drone I'll cancel my account.
5
But if I arm my drone, it's then protected under the
2nd amendment. Cool
Lester Lipsky
2nd amendment. Cool
Lester Lipsky
9
Senator Feinstein is right. It's only a matter to time until one of these insects brings down a plane, most likely over a densely populated area near an airport. Do we really NEED these things flying around--lethal accidents waiting to happen? And someone will weaponize them sooner or later. Thank you, Gail, for trying. The things are truly to be dreaded.
9
I'm not buying into this scare, bacause I have some practical experience: After the first few flights, drones are boring. They go up, they fly around, most often out of sight, behind trees or buildings - then they come back (most of them, on their own, to the exact spot they just left).
Once you're done looking around your neighborhood, what's left? The image on your handset is so small it's not really entertainment until you put it on a big screen. So you know what your neighborhood looks like from the air? Big deal. Flying these things take no skill, as do RC airplanes. Two or three flights later, my neighbors who have bought them leave them dusty on a shelf.
Once you're done looking around your neighborhood, what's left? The image on your handset is so small it's not really entertainment until you put it on a big screen. So you know what your neighborhood looks like from the air? Big deal. Flying these things take no skill, as do RC airplanes. Two or three flights later, my neighbors who have bought them leave them dusty on a shelf.
In a country that's cool with about 90 firearm deaths daily, curious to see what level of drone related incident fatalities will be tolerated.
14
Gail, the air space over my small acreage (for some Lone Star homesteads my 29 acres is barely a corner of the front yard) has effectively been declared a drone-free zone. By me. I will not hesitate for one second to unload both barrels of buckshot on any mechanical bug flying in my line of sight.
Squirrels on the other hand, even flying squirrels (which we have here) which don't actually fly but glide, are not just safe from me but are under my protection. They're even welcome to the dog food I put out every evening for my posse of foxes.
Another drone form from which we need protection is the mutterings of the sixteen remaining deluded Republicans thinking they'll get all the love next election day.
Squirrels on the other hand, even flying squirrels (which we have here) which don't actually fly but glide, are not just safe from me but are under my protection. They're even welcome to the dog food I put out every evening for my posse of foxes.
Another drone form from which we need protection is the mutterings of the sixteen remaining deluded Republicans thinking they'll get all the love next election day.
14
Better be sure it's below 500 feet and not some little manned gyrocopter in distress.
1
Great issue to discuss in this fall with stadiums full of fans of the NFL and MLB just waiting for snack delivery by drone. We may laugh, but drone delivery will happen.
Perhaps the real problem with controling drones is that a new agency--one with a drone-size viewpoint-- should be established to control drones. Surely there are some retiring government employees with drone experience who would love to move to the private sector.
Perhaps the real problem with controling drones is that a new agency--one with a drone-size viewpoint-- should be established to control drones. Surely there are some retiring government employees with drone experience who would love to move to the private sector.
1
This may seem like a weird analogy but to me for some it's like having to have the newest IPhone, a car with the most advanced technology, et. In some cases it is understandable but just what purpose do they serve? In California during the height of the fire season there was a case of tankers not being able to fly in certain areas because some Inspector Gadget wanna be's thought it was more important to fly their stupid drones over the fire area than try to save homes and property. Imagine that. That is the height of irresponsibility and ignorance and to me people like that should be prosecuted.
Then I am sure everyone is aware of Amazon saying that they will use drones to deliver orders? What's next? Can we expect McDonald's to deliver so we can still "have it our way
I don't mind people having their toys but these are not toys. They are instruments that people don't realize or don't care can while do some good in some cases, also crate some problems. Are they regulated? Will the FAA have drone towers to monitor and in effect control where they go and why?
Personally, this may ruffle a few feathers but I don't see then need for a private citizen to have one. Instead of wasting money on this why don't they donate the money to a food bank or homeless shelter, something where someone else can benefit instead of some adult thinking he's Buck Rogers.
Then I am sure everyone is aware of Amazon saying that they will use drones to deliver orders? What's next? Can we expect McDonald's to deliver so we can still "have it our way
I don't mind people having their toys but these are not toys. They are instruments that people don't realize or don't care can while do some good in some cases, also crate some problems. Are they regulated? Will the FAA have drone towers to monitor and in effect control where they go and why?
Personally, this may ruffle a few feathers but I don't see then need for a private citizen to have one. Instead of wasting money on this why don't they donate the money to a food bank or homeless shelter, something where someone else can benefit instead of some adult thinking he's Buck Rogers.
10
I feel that drones are a new scourge for our peace and quiet. I hate leaf blowers, but drones are really scary because I know they will be used to spy on people. Then again, my real fear is that squirrels will learn to fly drones. Then I will have to buy one for my Terrier so she can chase the flying squirrels.
12
Dear Gail, you wrote, "But it’s absolutely crazy that the bigger ones...aren’t being licensed and strictly regulated." Problem, Gail: regulations do not stop the dangers posed by drones any more than speed limit signs stop speeding. And giving someone a speeding ticket, even sending him or her to jail, is not going to provide much comfort for the loss of a loved one.
You may be sure that Congress, to protect business interests, will ensure that legislation holds no one liable for damage and deaths--all "accidental," most impossible to trace. And surely someone will claim that a small pistol strapped to a drone gives it Second Amendment rights. Drones should be owned and operated only by government agencies--period--unless commercial enterprises are held criminally liable for the consequences of their operation. Flying drones despite the knowledge that they can cause damage or death should be prima facie grounds of criminal intent, like leaving a loaded gun where children can get it.
You may be sure that Congress, to protect business interests, will ensure that legislation holds no one liable for damage and deaths--all "accidental," most impossible to trace. And surely someone will claim that a small pistol strapped to a drone gives it Second Amendment rights. Drones should be owned and operated only by government agencies--period--unless commercial enterprises are held criminally liable for the consequences of their operation. Flying drones despite the knowledge that they can cause damage or death should be prima facie grounds of criminal intent, like leaving a loaded gun where children can get it.
4
Agreed. There should be a weight limit and flying capacity limit for anything "recreational. " Wake up Congress and get to work!
5
I know that this is a peripheral issue, but there is a very simple solution to the ever-present problem of squirrels, drones, and blimps shorting out power lines: put them underground. Sure, there is an up-front cost, but maintenance is next to zero, as are power outages.
5
We all like the freedom a democratic society takes for granted; it is regulated, of course, to 'make sure' that my liberty may end were it to impinge on somebody else's. But when liberty becomes 'license' , trashing the safeguards we all agreed upon, sensible intervention, and control via regulation ought to be a given. As the second amendment's license of some may impinge on the first amendment's liberties of all; of course, during colonial times, it was meant for militias rather than individuals, for guns of limited capacity...instead of semi-automatic military-style highly lethal weapons of mass destruction. So, with the development of highly sophisticated drones (a marvel of technology, and no doubt very useful when used appropriately), its regulation for the greater good should be a given.
11
About three houses down from me is an adult man who flies his drone up and down the street almost constantly, day and night. If he's not at work or asleep that drone is going up and down the same street so there is the almost never ending zzzzzzzzzzz. I used to hear birdsong. Now I hear zzzzzzzzzzzz.
19
@Linda,
How infuriating! This individual feels entitled to trespass with noise (droning on incessantly) on the personal space of those he lives near, and if he's taking photos or video, on their privacy as well.
How infuriating! This individual feels entitled to trespass with noise (droning on incessantly) on the personal space of those he lives near, and if he's taking photos or video, on their privacy as well.
Is this one of those times where the right to bear arms comes in handy? I've seen videos of eagles smashing drones out of the sky and they weren't prosecuted.
call th cops whenever he flies
and dont stop calling
and dont stop calling
1
I think the judge in Kentucky is probably the only one who understands the problem of domestic drones. The only way to stop a bad guy with a drone is with a good guy with an anti-drone gun.
Here is a way for liberals, conservationists, and all good people who resent the theft of peace and quiet by profiteers to join in common cause with the NRA, the Tea Party, and the burgeoning hordes who believe that selfishness is a form of individualism.
Shotguns are too indiscriminate. So the only thing that America needs is an affordable, laser-guided, anti-drone gun that the average citizen can use to shoot down drones that invade the airspace over his or her private property. And we will need some "stand-your-ground" legislation and the able assistance of the NRA to secure our rights to sit in an easy chair in the backyard, watch the clouds roll by, and listen to the sweet sounds of birds unafraid to land at our birdfeeders.
Here is a way for liberals, conservationists, and all good people who resent the theft of peace and quiet by profiteers to join in common cause with the NRA, the Tea Party, and the burgeoning hordes who believe that selfishness is a form of individualism.
Shotguns are too indiscriminate. So the only thing that America needs is an affordable, laser-guided, anti-drone gun that the average citizen can use to shoot down drones that invade the airspace over his or her private property. And we will need some "stand-your-ground" legislation and the able assistance of the NRA to secure our rights to sit in an easy chair in the backyard, watch the clouds roll by, and listen to the sweet sounds of birds unafraid to land at our birdfeeders.
11
This article, and the comments, bolster an ignorance about the subject. And ignorance leads to fear. And fear leads to normally sane people doing some really dumb things.
I suggest that those of you that are concerned should do more research. Talk to some Unmanned Aerial Systems (drone) pilots, personally if you can. There are plenty of Facebook groups that are more than willing to dispel myths and answer questions.
Like anything else, there is opportunity for misuse. But, like guns, most of the people that own a drone use it properly and practice adequate safety. But the news outlets - like this one - only focus on the bad events. Because that sells more ads on their channel, paper, or website.
Let me dispel a few myths listed on here already:
Most recreational drones are about the size of a house cat or smaller. They have an average range of 2km. It is often shorter but some people have modified their setup to go much farther.
The best way to learn more about Drones is to simply ask the people that fly them. We are always happily willing to answer any and all questions about them.
I suggest that those of you that are concerned should do more research. Talk to some Unmanned Aerial Systems (drone) pilots, personally if you can. There are plenty of Facebook groups that are more than willing to dispel myths and answer questions.
Like anything else, there is opportunity for misuse. But, like guns, most of the people that own a drone use it properly and practice adequate safety. But the news outlets - like this one - only focus on the bad events. Because that sells more ads on their channel, paper, or website.
Let me dispel a few myths listed on here already:
Most recreational drones are about the size of a house cat or smaller. They have an average range of 2km. It is often shorter but some people have modified their setup to go much farther.
The best way to learn more about Drones is to simply ask the people that fly them. We are always happily willing to answer any and all questions about them.
1
If my neighbor's tree has limbs growing over my property, I am well within my rights to trim those lombs at my property line. So if you fly your drone over my property, then I am well within my rights to trim your drone. I would be happy to make that argument in court, so keep your drone over your property.
2
OK, here's one: what exactly was it that made you this thoughtless of everybody else's peace and quiet, to say nothing of their privacy and safety?
1
Wrong logic. Hobbyists do not have a right to invade my space, scare wildlife and domestic animals (I recall how terrified some horses, pigs, and sheep were when I was in a hot air balloon flying over farmland), and basically make nuisances of themselves. We're not going to have this fight. Want something to do with your time and money? Volunteer somewhere helping children or homeless or some other cause.
The conservative brain is nothing if not consistent! It seems to be incapable of examining the big picture and detecting credible threats to society. Many posters here find the concept of regulating toy caliber drones as big government or an intrusion on their rights. Seriously people? Of course we can't regulate the activities of squirrels or birds. But we can regulate drones and how they are used, just like we regulate how/where ATVs & dirt bikes are used. The only difference is that people sit on those. The similarity is people control their movement/operation. We also have laws that prevent us from photographing people through the windows of their homes. Drones doing taking pictures thusly are still operated by humans!
Legislation is needed to define the difference of between personal and business drones and their use. Drones are a unique new technology that pose serious safety and privacy threats to humans. I know we have the technological capability of installing unique electronic identification devices that could monitor the use of personal and business drones. And yes, this new technology might require the federal government to create a new bureaucracy to monitor their use. Or we could ban personal and business use of drones entirely. I personally prefer that. No one other than the military should be able to use drones. And I'm not convinced they should either. However, Pandora's box has been opened. What choice do we have?
Legislation is needed to define the difference of between personal and business drones and their use. Drones are a unique new technology that pose serious safety and privacy threats to humans. I know we have the technological capability of installing unique electronic identification devices that could monitor the use of personal and business drones. And yes, this new technology might require the federal government to create a new bureaucracy to monitor their use. Or we could ban personal and business use of drones entirely. I personally prefer that. No one other than the military should be able to use drones. And I'm not convinced they should either. However, Pandora's box has been opened. What choice do we have?
6
The quickest way to resolve the drone registration issues is to weaponize them. The NRA will step in to vigorously (some would say fanatically) defend unlimited, unregistered, unregulated drone ownership and use. End of problem!
And to make it even better for drone manufacturers, if your neighbor has a weaponized drone, you will need one, too. School administrators will be encouraged to equip playgrounds with weaponized drones to protect the jungle gyms from "bad people" with weaponized drones. Pretty soon our not-so-well-regulated militia will have a killer air force. Just in time to defend against the black helicopters.
And to make it even better for drone manufacturers, if your neighbor has a weaponized drone, you will need one, too. School administrators will be encouraged to equip playgrounds with weaponized drones to protect the jungle gyms from "bad people" with weaponized drones. Pretty soon our not-so-well-regulated militia will have a killer air force. Just in time to defend against the black helicopters.
5
when drones are outlawed, only bad guys will have drones
you can have my drone when you pry th joy stick from my cold dead hands
you can have my drone when you pry th joy stick from my cold dead hands
Sure, there is no public outrage about drone killing innocent civilians in far off places although as soon as they start crashing onto people's white picket fenced yards, land on the White House lawn, interrupt a football game or drop off drugs & saws to prisoners, immediately people start to question this technology. How many people are eager to have Amazon or Walmart send a drone to their front door carrying the latest Scrabble game or plastic toy made in China, although could give a rat's tail about the noise pollution as well as distractions that these contraptions create? Just like the advent of the automobile in the US, people will be fascinated with them, change their lifestyles to embrace new gadgets, without ever considering the long term adverse repercussions from the new technology.
9
II was wondering about costs. I live in a crowded urban area with more cars than apartments. I park my car on the street and every time I need to move my car I can spend up to 2 hrs looking for a parking space no more that 3 block from were I live because I am very old. I was thinking that if we had a drone my wife controlling it back in the apartment could use the drone to locate parking spaces and tell me the location via cell phone. Maybe if she saw another car heading for an open space she could fly the drone on front of it to slow it down. But Winter is coming and she would have to open the window to fly and recover the drone and my wife would hover the drone overhead as I parked telling me what to do just like she does when she is in the car. On the other hand while circling for a parking space I listen to NPR. I learn a lot that way. Almost as much are reading Gail Collins.
7
The cat - - - er, drone - - - is already out of the bag.
There are already a lot of drone owners out there, and there is a drone manufacturing industry that is ramping up to increase drone numbers exponentially.
It's a good bet drone manufacturers already have a trade association and a Washington lobbyist. And there's nothing like a lobbyist bearing gifts to stop pesky regulation in its tracks.
But regulation of drone use would be futile in any case because there isn't any feasible way to enforce drone restrictions. A drone can easily fit in the trunk of a car, and there are millions of cars out there. The only effective way to stop this is to put drone manufacturers out of business immediately and make drone sales illegal.
This is the way we always do things in this country. We never act preemptively. We wait until a noxious behavior or new product becomes entrenched and develops a constituency and political influence, after which it becomes impossible to eradicate.
Now about those giant snakes in the Everglades that descended from someone's pet . . .
There are already a lot of drone owners out there, and there is a drone manufacturing industry that is ramping up to increase drone numbers exponentially.
It's a good bet drone manufacturers already have a trade association and a Washington lobbyist. And there's nothing like a lobbyist bearing gifts to stop pesky regulation in its tracks.
But regulation of drone use would be futile in any case because there isn't any feasible way to enforce drone restrictions. A drone can easily fit in the trunk of a car, and there are millions of cars out there. The only effective way to stop this is to put drone manufacturers out of business immediately and make drone sales illegal.
This is the way we always do things in this country. We never act preemptively. We wait until a noxious behavior or new product becomes entrenched and develops a constituency and political influence, after which it becomes impossible to eradicate.
Now about those giant snakes in the Everglades that descended from someone's pet . . .
3
Enforcement, or the inability thereof, will be the problem. In my state it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while using a cell phone. The fines are increased if such use is in a "work zone". In the news yesterday, on a work site along an Interstate, "flaggers" decided to count people doing just that. Before the day ended they had counted over 100 and stopped at that number. If people will not obey a law, and enforcement is not possible, what makes us believe regulating drones will be in any way effective? As Dave says, the cats out of the bag.
1
Just say no. No having drones fly products to my house is ridiculous. Drones flying near aircraft and it places they shouldn't be should be solved by law.
We flew kites in windy NY when I was young and some were big and crashed sometimes. We still have kites. As a producer the ability to carefully fly over and capture shots is enticing. Businesses like real estate and even a chemical plant to use drones with great success. The wright brothers would have had a problem. Common sense legislation would work. The use of cell phones which is a great way to communicate is becoming an issue. For children and teens. For drivers who just can't stop themselves. Personal behavior and responsibility in our society is what is missing more today. That can't be legislated we have to wan't a free, vibrant society that can do different things without it's freedom being curtailed.
We flew kites in windy NY when I was young and some were big and crashed sometimes. We still have kites. As a producer the ability to carefully fly over and capture shots is enticing. Businesses like real estate and even a chemical plant to use drones with great success. The wright brothers would have had a problem. Common sense legislation would work. The use of cell phones which is a great way to communicate is becoming an issue. For children and teens. For drivers who just can't stop themselves. Personal behavior and responsibility in our society is what is missing more today. That can't be legislated we have to wan't a free, vibrant society that can do different things without it's freedom being curtailed.
A drone would be the perfect gift for a peeping tom.
Until one takes a picture of Ted Cruz genuflecting at an altar to Karl Marx we probably won't see this congress take any action.
Until one takes a picture of Ted Cruz genuflecting at an altar to Karl Marx we probably won't see this congress take any action.
7
The cats are out of the bag, humpty dumpty has already fallen, it's time to create a massive new bureaucracy to protect us once again from ourselves.
Here we go again!
There is a solution, cut taxes further for the wealthy, that always helps.
Here we go again!
There is a solution, cut taxes further for the wealthy, that always helps.
11
Here's the irony: as of now there are no regulations on recreational drones, but drones for research purposes, which are going to be flown by trained specialists, are highly regulated and require FAA permits.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2014/12/17/Universities-Confusin...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2014/12/17/Universities-Confusin...
11
Our capitalistic society never does anything to protect us until there is a catastrophe. Our do nothing congress will do nothing until an airliner is brought down because of a drone. What about anthrax deliveries via drones? For all their patriotic bravado talk, they refuse to protect the public. They should be held criminally responsible for aiding these destructive drones.
16
There is another reason it's important to regulate drones. They deliver bombs, often inaccurately. If buyers are vetted and registered, there is more of an opportunity to trace them.
The US military has used them to great effect for both surveillance and attacks, and the technology is simple. Expect them to become the weapon of choice for terror organizations very soon.
The US military has used them to great effect for both surveillance and attacks, and the technology is simple. Expect them to become the weapon of choice for terror organizations very soon.
16
As always Gail's thoughts are worth reading. As someone who works in aviation I am subject to about as many government imposed regulations as anyone. I firmly believe that the regulators don't spend their days searching for things to regulate. Many of the rules that I have to deal with every day are in place because someone did something irresponsible or downright stupid. It's telling that these drones started out unregulated and it was just a matter of time before some people demonstrated why regulating agencies are necessary. Every time someone complains about the big bad gubmint I want to tell them to move to Somalia. See how well those folks live without regulations.
237
Drones? It's the drones in state and federal legislatures we have to worry about, not the drones they have permitted to drone abpve us. Ground your legislators until you get protection from drones with wings. You have to put the bee in their bonnets, "Sorry, honey, you're outta the hive if you can't be a worker for the good of all." It's Mother Nature's golden rule.
1
Yes and just wait til someone figures out they can combine drones and guns. Sometimes I wonder if we the people can get an more stupid.
3
kept waiting for the drone with the dog strapped to its roof.
10
here is a new shooting sport I could support. Drone skeet.
14
Well, It looks like those drones* in Congress may once again do nothing to deal with the obvious safety hazards of the rapidly increasing number of drones whizzing through the air, so Gail and other journalists as well as lots of professional organizations will need to keep droning on about the need to regulate the use of drones in this country.
Or will the Republicans argue that any and all government regulation of drones would be jobs-destroying? Of course, how would the Republicans know what is jobs-destroying, since they have no idea how to work and carry out their own job.
(*"a male bee ...that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen; one that lives on the labors of others")
Or will the Republicans argue that any and all government regulation of drones would be jobs-destroying? Of course, how would the Republicans know what is jobs-destroying, since they have no idea how to work and carry out their own job.
(*"a male bee ...that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen; one that lives on the labors of others")
10
Besides spying on your neighbors, these drones are incredible noisy. Just wait until the sky is filled with these things buzzing overhead day and night. I am totally against guns but if someone with one shoots these things down without harming anyone, I'm all for it.
14
Ah, you're a master, Gail. Only in the last sentence do we learn what this column is truly about.
4
The venerable old Claymore Mine weighs about three and a half pounds and in stunningly lethal, blasting 700 projectiles out to 100 yards or so. A drone could carry one, or several, with ease. How would you like one of those popping in your face or the face of anyone else who happens to be the target of any miscreant able to afford a few thousand dollars and resourceful enough to get a Claymore or something similar? Perhaps just a handgun modified with a 100 round magazine and full-automatic firing. capability?
Simply guiding one into the windshield or engines of an airliner is enough to make a terrorist salivate in anticipation. Let's not wait for the disaster before we act.
Simply guiding one into the windshield or engines of an airliner is enough to make a terrorist salivate in anticipation. Let's not wait for the disaster before we act.
14
Thanks for putting that suggestion out there. I feel much better now.
For the record it was the second round match between Flavia Pennetta and Monica Niculescu.
From USA Today: "The sound of the crash visibly startled both players. Both were wobbly on serve toward the end of the contest, but Pennetta served out the match to win 6-1, 6-4."
Pennetta went on to win the title, something no one, not even Pennetta, thought would happen. Coincidence?
From USA Today: "The sound of the crash visibly startled both players. Both were wobbly on serve toward the end of the contest, but Pennetta served out the match to win 6-1, 6-4."
Pennetta went on to win the title, something no one, not even Pennetta, thought would happen. Coincidence?
3
Reading Gail's article and the comments has an old tune playing in my head, "In the Shade of the Old Apple Tree" (underneath is where I long to be). I'm already considering a canopy of crepe myrtle trees, choosing the fastest growing, to shelter our windows, walkway, alley and yard. Amazon and Walmart deliveries will be denied, as a plus.
5
Ah, finally a reason to buy a gun. I've never really liked killing things, but downing drones looks to be a lot of fun.
27
My recurring nightmare is that someone will strap a bullet to one of these things and then the NRA will feel compelled to step in and declare drones protected by the Second Amendment.
13
Somebody already did that. I believe it was a college student having a good time.
Now you've gone and done it Gail! You have just created the National Drone Association, a non-profit group, dedicated to protecting everyone's right to bear drones! Move over N.R.A. and you tea party "folks", there's a new player in town. Thanks a lot Gail!!!
The catastrophe has already happened. Not an airliner disaster. Not a high-level assassination. Not a bioweapon attack. No sir.
The event was when we all, and I include the legions of the dimwitted, the angry, as well as military and terrorist inventors, when we all were told of the possibilities.
The possibles are now impossible to prevent. The hardware is out there and even these early generations are capable. A totally new universe of good and bad has been discovered. The history of the human race indicates that every implementation will ensue. And, that governments will not be able to regulate, control or prevent what's coming. We are finally, ground-based creatures that we are, heading individually into the vertical dimension, and we know nothing about the consequences.
The event was when we all, and I include the legions of the dimwitted, the angry, as well as military and terrorist inventors, when we all were told of the possibilities.
The possibles are now impossible to prevent. The hardware is out there and even these early generations are capable. A totally new universe of good and bad has been discovered. The history of the human race indicates that every implementation will ensue. And, that governments will not be able to regulate, control or prevent what's coming. We are finally, ground-based creatures that we are, heading individually into the vertical dimension, and we know nothing about the consequences.
1
I stood by a drone case in a sporting goods store last spring as my grandson checked out new baseball bats, (of which I had to buy two in one game). If the comments of those passing by the case are any indication, they are as popular as a hula hoop on Alvin's wish list. However, I agree, they should come with a parent warning, "Can breed mischief, as purposes are limited."
The best I have heard is a fundraiser in which a net full of ping pong balls is dropped from above on to a sporting event. Fans purchase the numbered balls and the one closest to the marked ball wins - the team keeps the proceeds. And the worst, a threat to put dye in the neighbor's swimming pool.
The best I have heard is a fundraiser in which a net full of ping pong balls is dropped from above on to a sporting event. Fans purchase the numbered balls and the one closest to the marked ball wins - the team keeps the proceeds. And the worst, a threat to put dye in the neighbor's swimming pool.
A baseball bat may come in handy against a drone. "Can be used as drone deterrent." The malice and mayhem posed by drones is great, it far exceeds mischief.
1
Few things are as unsettling as the prospect of drones delivering packages, through snow, sleet and dark of night, or in more favorable circumstances, to retail consumers. The images "of the future" that appeared in the popular press at least 50 years ago, of individuals routinely inhabiting and using, for personal travel and for routine commercial delivery, three-dimensional space was science fiction then, pure and simple, and it remains that today. The deceptive allure of "scientific/technological advancement" once more produces fantastical images that defy even rudimentary rationality, a phenomenon that unfortunately is loose in the land and gathering steam with a populous increasingly overwhelmed and overmatched by the complexities of human existence.
6
I can't help but compare the cooments about drones, especially the more hysterical ones, to those heard in the 1800's about the appearance of the evil horseless carriage: dangerous, annoying, noisy, disruptive, rich-man's toy, and of no use to society.
I do not own any flying device, and see how they can be annoying (the real risks are certainly inflated here). But annoying is a suspect justification for regulation.
I do not own any flying device, and see how they can be annoying (the real risks are certainly inflated here). But annoying is a suspect justification for regulation.
3
You are aware that 'horseless carriages' are ,in fact, regulated? Including for merely 'annoying' aspects like noise?
Not the best analogy for your argument methinks.
Not the best analogy for your argument methinks.
19
So you don't envision the potential and probable invasion of privacy and private space? I don't see how a landbound vehicle is similiar.
8
Paul, cars and trucks are certainly regulated today, but the early years were generally open. And yes, some voices then did call for total bans.
Dave, automobiles, and their required infrastructure, have obviously invaded what many in the 19th century might have considered their "private" space. But as a society, are we better off now?
My point is to be careful about balancing your personal preferrences against those of others when reacting to technical and social change.
Dave, automobiles, and their required infrastructure, have obviously invaded what many in the 19th century might have considered their "private" space. But as a society, are we better off now?
My point is to be careful about balancing your personal preferrences against those of others when reacting to technical and social change.
2
Ms. Collins' writing is always enjoyable to read, due to its get-to-the-point nature, accuracy, and humor. I think, though, that with this piece, I detect just a whiff of desperation undertone. That is understandable (if true). Our fantastic freedoms have always contained the seeds of our own destruction. Now fertilized with the ancient stuff of human nature, the newer middle of potent and efficient firearms, and the modern blessings of recreational toys with destructive potential, and left to flourish, unweeded, by the gardeners of regulation who should maintain order, it is hardly a wonder that the garden has become an increasingly forbidding place in which to wander.
5
Indeed...there is much fertilizer to be stepped on.
Down here in Norfolk, I can sit at night in my front yard or back deck and count drones, just like shooting stars during the Perseids. They are probably military drones, I hope. But I suspect there are also plenty of "recreational" drones as well. They are all so potentially dangerous for so many reasons. Thanks, Gail. We must at least try to regulate them.
14
It's only a question of time before a drone gets sucked into a jet engine and downs an airliner, either by accident or in an intentional terrorist strike. Would anyone like to place bets on when and where this will happen first? What odds would be appropriate here?
32
The odds are calculable, I think, since the most probable lethal event is at a small radius at airports, where there is a known or projected density of reported drone flights. Then it's a matter of cross sections: engine intake area, drone dimensions. With, say, 100 near misses reported at airports per month, decent numbers can be estimated. I don't think that there's much question about the effect of an ingested drone on an engine, or the effect of engine loss near the ground. Things being the way they are, bets are probably already down.
Imagine the perfect crime. Done via long distance drone. Or could be terrorism.
The unwillingness of one party to act to protect the citizenry is an abomination!
The unwillingness of one party to act to protect the citizenry is an abomination!
20
Drones are a menace in National Parks. When one flew into the Grand Prismatic in Yellowstone, the Park officials acted quickly to ban them .
There is talk in the fly fishing community of using drones to check out rivers. Enjoy your wilderness experience.
There is talk in the fly fishing community of using drones to check out rivers. Enjoy your wilderness experience.
11
Simple fix -- fly one into an assembly of legislators and release a vaguely unpleasant spray over everyone. Don't bother about controlling it, either ... just get it airborne. They'll do all the work for you!
25
Anyone who wants to fly a drone near my home is going to have to do mortal combat with my drone net gun -er, "Netted Flying Toy" (that includes you, Amazon).
10
Shooting down drones will soon become a national sport.
44
may i recommend a 410 ga shotgun
not too noisy, little recoil and enough firepower for a drone
lock and load, fire when ready
not too noisy, little recoil and enough firepower for a drone
lock and load, fire when ready
This is a huge problem that's not going away.
Commercial operators of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) have a business interest in operating their sUAS safely. Business risks include loss of equipment, legal liability, and loss of customers' trust. While time consuming, the paperwork and certifications to gain government approval to operate for commerce are clear and achievable. This creates a pact between to two which guides legal, responsible flight operations.
Private sUAS operators currently have few constraints to limit their flights other than battery power. Personal restraint is not an American strong suit. Regular airspace violations of restricted airspace including airports and critical infrastructure sites are proof that many private owners are reckless, selfish, and irresponsible. Dude bros with new toys - yes, more bad things to come.
Serial number registration and perhaps some form of certification is the only way to establish accountability when the next, inevitable tragedy occurs.
While it is difficult to weaponized the smallest sUAS, it doesn't take much more than one casualty from an improvised explosive to create panic. It only gets worse from here.
Commercial operators of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) have a business interest in operating their sUAS safely. Business risks include loss of equipment, legal liability, and loss of customers' trust. While time consuming, the paperwork and certifications to gain government approval to operate for commerce are clear and achievable. This creates a pact between to two which guides legal, responsible flight operations.
Private sUAS operators currently have few constraints to limit their flights other than battery power. Personal restraint is not an American strong suit. Regular airspace violations of restricted airspace including airports and critical infrastructure sites are proof that many private owners are reckless, selfish, and irresponsible. Dude bros with new toys - yes, more bad things to come.
Serial number registration and perhaps some form of certification is the only way to establish accountability when the next, inevitable tragedy occurs.
While it is difficult to weaponized the smallest sUAS, it doesn't take much more than one casualty from an improvised explosive to create panic. It only gets worse from here.
15
The only way to stop a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone. But let's not ignore the legislative potential of squirrel control.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
17
Either Congress or the courts need to define where free airspace over your property ends and your "ownership" over your home begins. Somewhere between a commercial jet flying overhead at 30,000 feet, and a drone hovering outside your window or 10 feet over your swimming pool there's a reasonable demarcation line and expectation of privacy for the airspace over our homes.
22
While we're at it, Gail, could we maybe quqlify some of the GOP candidates as drones? And outlaw or regulate them too?
;-)
;-)
19
DRONING ON AND ON Drones are NOT firearms. They are NOT protected under the Second Amendment. But they can easily be used as weapons. If we're dumb enough to permit them to operate unsupervised, we're going to look back on the crash that caused the Great Recession with fond sadness. Anybody who's got a grudge against anything flying can have easy shots at them, including passenger, cargo and military planes. OK so the drones are not fast enough to catch a fighter plane. Not yet, at least! They will be.
I place the responsible for this foreseeable train wreck on the DRONES IN CONGRESS of the GOP, who are averse to legislating and governing.
Speaking of train wrecks, the GOP extremists found a way to delay bringing railroads up to current safety standards in which engines are automatically disabled when centrally monitored information indicates a wreck is going to occur.
You know--all that self-destructive behavior that falls under the category of shrinking the government (which they fondly refer to as "the Beast"). Well here's a news flash: My personal opinion is that GOP members of Congress who have set things in place to literally cause train wrecks pose a significant threat to national security. With that in mind, I that President Obama needs to issue an Emergency Executive Order declaring all drones that can be weaponized to be under the direct control of the armed services and local law enforcement.
I place the responsible for this foreseeable train wreck on the DRONES IN CONGRESS of the GOP, who are averse to legislating and governing.
Speaking of train wrecks, the GOP extremists found a way to delay bringing railroads up to current safety standards in which engines are automatically disabled when centrally monitored information indicates a wreck is going to occur.
You know--all that self-destructive behavior that falls under the category of shrinking the government (which they fondly refer to as "the Beast"). Well here's a news flash: My personal opinion is that GOP members of Congress who have set things in place to literally cause train wrecks pose a significant threat to national security. With that in mind, I that President Obama needs to issue an Emergency Executive Order declaring all drones that can be weaponized to be under the direct control of the armed services and local law enforcement.
13
What? We don't have the right to maintain our own air force?
1
But Gail, how can we step on our "freedoms" and "rights"? Heaven forbid that we invite "more government regulation" or slow the progress of business (translate to financial gain)?
I remember several years ago being excited that the scientist son-in-law of a friend of mine had used a "flying camera" in his research, and what a wonderful innovation it was with as-yet-unknown benefits. Unfortunately, there now evolves the dark side....everything that is good invariably attracts users who would utilize it for harm.
I am glad that I am a senior citizen since the world I once knew as a relatively safe place is spiraling into a sci-fi scenario. And we KNOW the GOP is going to scream "Big-Brother" and while at the same time resisting any oversight!
I remember several years ago being excited that the scientist son-in-law of a friend of mine had used a "flying camera" in his research, and what a wonderful innovation it was with as-yet-unknown benefits. Unfortunately, there now evolves the dark side....everything that is good invariably attracts users who would utilize it for harm.
I am glad that I am a senior citizen since the world I once knew as a relatively safe place is spiraling into a sci-fi scenario. And we KNOW the GOP is going to scream "Big-Brother" and while at the same time resisting any oversight!
23
Gail Collins - "Now it’s true that squirrels knock out power lines and nobody’s talking about regulating them. But squirrels don’t get in the way of passenger planes."
Birds do, geese do and have knocked planes out of the sky. Where is the regulation for birds? [tongue in cheek] When do we stop trying to regulate every facet of human life? Look how regulated the automobile industry is and yet we still have thousands of fatalities every year. Look at firearms in the US where there are over 22,000 laws and regulations and we still have thousands of deaths.
Perhaps we should start small by teaching personal responsibility to our youth at a very early age. Let them know that every action they take has consequences and that they are responsible for those consequences. Build a better human being and another government bureaucracy with pages and pages of rules, laws and regulations will not be needed.
Birds do, geese do and have knocked planes out of the sky. Where is the regulation for birds? [tongue in cheek] When do we stop trying to regulate every facet of human life? Look how regulated the automobile industry is and yet we still have thousands of fatalities every year. Look at firearms in the US where there are over 22,000 laws and regulations and we still have thousands of deaths.
Perhaps we should start small by teaching personal responsibility to our youth at a very early age. Let them know that every action they take has consequences and that they are responsible for those consequences. Build a better human being and another government bureaucracy with pages and pages of rules, laws and regulations will not be needed.
Decent, intelligent parents have been teaching children about personal responsibility since the beginning of time.
And therein lies the problem to your otherwise sound suggestion.
The number of parents who cannot even see fit to put socks or shoes on their toddlers in 100+ degree weather, or bathe them properly, or supervise (or help with) their homework, or assign them chores in order to "earn" their allowances, or teach them basic civility and respect for others, now far outnumbers the good, caring parents of this country.
If I see one more mother in the grocery store screaming at (or smacking) her toddler to shut the f--- up when the kid is filthy, it's after 9p and the grocery cart is filled with beer, frozen pizza and diapers, I may scream myself.
You can't legislate, instigate or require decency, responsibility, or humanity. Unfortunately.
And therein lies the problem to your otherwise sound suggestion.
The number of parents who cannot even see fit to put socks or shoes on their toddlers in 100+ degree weather, or bathe them properly, or supervise (or help with) their homework, or assign them chores in order to "earn" their allowances, or teach them basic civility and respect for others, now far outnumbers the good, caring parents of this country.
If I see one more mother in the grocery store screaming at (or smacking) her toddler to shut the f--- up when the kid is filthy, it's after 9p and the grocery cart is filled with beer, frozen pizza and diapers, I may scream myself.
You can't legislate, instigate or require decency, responsibility, or humanity. Unfortunately.
9
Sorry, but regs have cut gunshot deaths far below their frequency in 1910, and car safety equipment has halved that total number of deaths despite ahuge growth in the number of cars. If humans were responsible, parents perfectly sane, and kids, well, not childish, regs might be unnecessary. In the real world, they are.
8
Dr. Bob Solomon - I didn't say that regs weren't necessary! I said "another government bureaucracy with pages and pages of rules, laws and regulations will not be needed" and "personal responsibility" is key.
I'm also sure that "in the real world" there are many laws against interfering with an aircraft in flight as there are many laws about operating any device that is harmful when misused. Let's use the laws we already have and stop writing new ones. Enforce existing laws when personal responsibility fails.
I'm also sure that "in the real world" there are many laws against interfering with an aircraft in flight as there are many laws about operating any device that is harmful when misused. Let's use the laws we already have and stop writing new ones. Enforce existing laws when personal responsibility fails.
If we had a congress with any intelligence both drones and laser pointers would have been severely regulated long ago. It's a no brainer but that describes many of our congressmen and women as well. The penalties for endangering an airplane would have been mandatory prison time. If it's too hard to catch the idiots using lasers (or drones for that mater) they should be outlawed for the general public. We did fine with wooden pointers for decades.
14
If a flying goose can be ingested by a jet engine and cause it to fail catastrophically (as Capt Sullenberger can attest), then even a small drone can do the same. Regulation of drones needs to be based on something more comprehensive than size and weight alone.
9
Currently I have three DJI drones of various specificity. All have built in GPS restrictions for maximum travel of height and airport space. They are flown usually far way from people and other sensitive areas such as power lines and so forth. As an avid photographer I am greatly concerned what restrictions soon will be set forth in congress. Let me first note that I understand more regulations may be needed to counteract irresponsible and inappropriate uses. At this time this may be more of an issue in certain areas of California where there apparently are more drones in use. To my knowledge, in my area of Michigan these instances appears few and far between. Nonetheless, human behavior will probably yield its sometimes ugly head and stupid people with drones will do stupid things and make the problem worse. I hope I am wrong.
7
What happens when millions of drones are flying through military and commercal airspace?
Are people stupid? Are military decision makers stupid?
Drones, even those of the military, should be outlawed.
One of the things that makes them so insidious is that from far away those responsible feel no remorse for the "accidents" they cause.
The same thing applies to remote control of U.S. military decisions that bomb wedding guests and hospitals in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Those innocent victims are murdered by military pilots who receive instructions from military techies in bunkers in the U.S. who can casually reach for a soda or take a bite of pizza as they wreak havoc thousands of miles away.
See no evil, hear no evil, feel no guilt for any targeted mistakes
Are people stupid? Are military decision makers stupid?
Drones, even those of the military, should be outlawed.
One of the things that makes them so insidious is that from far away those responsible feel no remorse for the "accidents" they cause.
The same thing applies to remote control of U.S. military decisions that bomb wedding guests and hospitals in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Those innocent victims are murdered by military pilots who receive instructions from military techies in bunkers in the U.S. who can casually reach for a soda or take a bite of pizza as they wreak havoc thousands of miles away.
See no evil, hear no evil, feel no guilt for any targeted mistakes
5
I was recently at a small concert in the open and a big drone flew over and hovered over us. I can only describe my feeling as fear upon seeing it and even wondering how I could get out quickly. Fortunately, it hovered for a few minutes and then left. Afterwards, I considered that someone in charge of the concert might have used the drone to photograph the crowd size. Still didn't like the experience.
1
Thank you, dear Gail for your dread of drones, those "tiny flying toys. Yes, there is something very wrong with them. They are not "a good thing". I fear this is not just another American fad like pet rocks, beanie babies, selfie-stix, ice-bucket challenges. These flying quadcopters are in need of regulation and drone-control ASAP. And will they get it? Will guns and the NRA get gun control regulations? Drones delivering packages to the folks with dough ordering online for really FAST delivery are as useless as you know whats on a bull. The American inability to delay instant gratification is alive and flying toys delivering needless stuff are above us. Drones are a fearsome example of unknown jabberwocks whiffling over the tulgey wood. Guns and drones are our manxome foe and they need the vorpal blade to snicker-snack them into realistic regulation before something truly horrific happens during a drone delivery or standing one's ground.
16
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and air drones shall not be infringed."
Right there in the American "Bill of Rights", amendment number 2.5, sub coda 6, paragraph 3 (Or so this really reliable Internet site tells me sponsored by the NRA; no not THAT one, the 'National Reallynot Aircraft' association headquartered in Steve Bezos's basement).
Look at the bright side; with over 300 million guns out there to begin with and, soon, millions of drones flying about, to quote a Kip Attaway song, "We got plenty of guns and SOMETHING to shoot."
Pitting one NRA against the other NRA would be a sort of 'microcosm' of the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE presidential wrestling match being played out in debates nationwide with only the 'public' being the loser.
But on a more curious note, why are they called "drones"? They don't. Drone, that is; they are generally very quiet and almost undetectable by ear at least by my pair of 67 year old ears.
Unless SCOTUS becomes involved, I do not see how the Second and a Half Amendment can be overturned or changed. Drones are just as enshrined in our Constitution as guns or drinking water (er, maybe not water) as our Founding Fathers were very astute about the future,,,mostly..okay, they dropped the ball on slavery.
Just when is "Drone Season" in Kentucky? Drones, guns and sour mash; what could possibly go wrong?
Right there in the American "Bill of Rights", amendment number 2.5, sub coda 6, paragraph 3 (Or so this really reliable Internet site tells me sponsored by the NRA; no not THAT one, the 'National Reallynot Aircraft' association headquartered in Steve Bezos's basement).
Look at the bright side; with over 300 million guns out there to begin with and, soon, millions of drones flying about, to quote a Kip Attaway song, "We got plenty of guns and SOMETHING to shoot."
Pitting one NRA against the other NRA would be a sort of 'microcosm' of the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE presidential wrestling match being played out in debates nationwide with only the 'public' being the loser.
But on a more curious note, why are they called "drones"? They don't. Drone, that is; they are generally very quiet and almost undetectable by ear at least by my pair of 67 year old ears.
Unless SCOTUS becomes involved, I do not see how the Second and a Half Amendment can be overturned or changed. Drones are just as enshrined in our Constitution as guns or drinking water (er, maybe not water) as our Founding Fathers were very astute about the future,,,mostly..okay, they dropped the ball on slavery.
Just when is "Drone Season" in Kentucky? Drones, guns and sour mash; what could possibly go wrong?
9
Stop being a grinch. We all want a drone for Christmas so we can check up on what's going on in the 'hood -- or in our neighbor's bedroom -- without having to get up from the couch. There are too many planes out there anyhow. We need dedicated airspace for our drones -- just like we have for our other devices.
So, nothing will be done "unless Congress gets its act together".
Honestly, Ms. Collins is always insightful and funny, but that line cracked me up like nothing did in recent memory. Laugh out loud type of funny. Yeah, right. What are the chances of *that* going to happen. Congress getting its act together. Seriously, Ms. Collins, you are one of a kind.
Honestly, Ms. Collins is always insightful and funny, but that line cracked me up like nothing did in recent memory. Laugh out loud type of funny. Yeah, right. What are the chances of *that* going to happen. Congress getting its act together. Seriously, Ms. Collins, you are one of a kind.
14
Same nitwits who point lasers at airplanes while in flight are the people who will use drones stupidly.
10
If you put a gun on it, your second amendment rights, (with this court) will allow you to send it anywhere you want.
9
Next you liberals will be suggesting I disarm my drone. Only over my stiff, cold body!
4
Would your stiff, cold body be the result of drone action gone awry?
Good article -- especially the swipe at the end about handguns. The broader issue is that myriad advanced technologies are becoming available at very low prices, with the result that idiots and criminals will abuse and misuse them to the detriment of our society. This proliferation of dangerous gadgets is happening at a time when our culture has a strong bias against regulation of any type, which makes me concerned that even the most sensible limits on drones, for example, are 'not gonna fly". And, of course, adopting a regulation is quite different from effectively enforcing it: As with advanced firearms, there are going to be far too many anonymous drones out there for new regulations to have much impact. Welcome to the mosquitoes of the 21st century -- we may finally find a proper use for all those handguns: Shooting down drones!
5
I remember vividly the "hunter-seeker" in the novel Dune by Frank Herbert written in the mid 60's. This was a tiny remote-controlled drone equipped with a video camera and a retractable needle loaded with a poison that could seek out and kill an individual. Science fiction then, but it seems we are very close to science reality now. In today's unregulated market it would be difficult to trace the owner of such a weapon.
9
Just a guess here, but if you had unrestricted access to say, Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland or Area 51 in Nevada or the more remote parts of Kirkland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, I would be almost shocked not to see such things flying around. The future always arrives long before most people realize that the past is gone.
5
Larger drones all require firmware to work. It would be easy for the manufacturer to withold a key to that firmware until the device is registered online.
7
While drones today seem manageable with common sense licensing, at the current rate of progress, I fear inexpensive controllable drones the size of a bee fitted with lethal weaponry will make targeted assassinations no longer the realm of of science fiction.
6
See, this is the problem with Libertarianism, which assumes that people are inherently good and, given perfect freedom, people will do the right thing. But this is not so. Most often, the Devil holds the strings that move us. Give people the right to fly their drones wherever they like, and it's all a matter of time before there are web sites called Hot Babes Sunbathing in Backyard Pools and Vulnerable Points in Public Utilities and Hilarious Videos of Window Washers Surprised by Drone-Bumps. Libertarians take note: People need regulations. Heck, folks don't actually grow up until they are in their 40s. And greed knows no moral limitations.
23
There was a report of a cluster of drones (over a dozen) this week in Boulder, Colorado but it turned out to be a Republican Debate on the college campus.
13
I think drones should remain in bee hives where they belong. If you are annoyed by bird droppings from the sky imagine what a drone might drop.
3
Simple solution: Ban purchase of drones by civilians. Registration, rules, warnings will not prevent the tragedy that will surely happen. Memo to drone owners: Take up another hobby. You have no right to endanger the lives of your fellow citizens.
11
Oops!! Spying on each other. What would Edgar Snow say? Of course, it doesn't make any difference what Edgar would say, since he has abandoned his right to say anything from that bastion of democracy, Russia.
Anyway, once more we in the US are faced with making a choice: the good of all versus the good of a few. Surprising, isn't it, that government gets the credit and the blame for choosing the good of ALL? Hey, I'm for government, ours, I mean. So let's get some good laws for the good of all - and I do mean guns, as well as drones.
Anyway, once more we in the US are faced with making a choice: the good of all versus the good of a few. Surprising, isn't it, that government gets the credit and the blame for choosing the good of ALL? Hey, I'm for government, ours, I mean. So let's get some good laws for the good of all - and I do mean guns, as well as drones.
2
This could be an opportunity for the NRA to expand its reach in protecting our freedoms. There has to be somewhere in the 2nd amendment that could protect drone-owners.
1
Yeah. We could equip drones, the larger ones, with armament like an attack helicopter, small rockets that could blow up a car, and or 22 cal machine guns with say 50 rounds to shoot through windows etc. It's our 2nd amendment right to murder each other when some *#!! cuts us off in traffic because they almost missed their turn-of.
1
"Right now, the F.A.A. and the Transportation Department are working on a drone registration program — like a warranty, when you buy a blender. Ideally, the registration system would make owners aware there are rules governing where they can fly..."
Good. Maybe these are the departments that can develop a registration program for guns next. Sheesh, we can register and regulate autos, boats and now drones but guns? The logic does not stand.
Good. Maybe these are the departments that can develop a registration program for guns next. Sheesh, we can register and regulate autos, boats and now drones but guns? The logic does not stand.
7
I'm for regulating drones as soon as we regulate the NSA and the FBI.
But Gail, we know that a woman's body has a way of shutting this whole thing down. Whoops, I mean, this is about freedom and the rights of otherwise unarmed male nerds to join the well-regulated militia. You'll have to take the drones out of their cold dead hands.
8
Congress won't act until one crashes into an airliner or into the Capitol Building. Then they'll have no choice.
9
I refuse to get involved in this drone business until they come up with an all-natural alternative, a free range carrier pigeon that will only deliver locally produced goods.
10
Our country can't regulate guns in any meaningful way, but we can regulate drones.
Well, cars are toys for all still ado men, toys that will soon be able to fly without any driver. It's heaven on earth.
Selling drones to the public is another stellar example of short-term profit creating long-term problems. I have given up on the thought that someday we will learn the difference between what we can do and what we should do. We need to refrain from doing things simply because we have the capacity to do so when a very small amount of thought shows these impulses to be folly.
In the most minor of unwanted outcomes is a drone delivery with a package that smashes my perennial garden or lands on a child or pet playing there. I do not want them invading my privacy or my peaceful enjoyment of nature. I don't want them on beaches crowded with people or beautifully empty. I don't want them. Period.
The potential for harm by drones is enormous. Just ask the multitude of people in parts of the world where we fly them as spy mechanisms or military weapons. People in those countries have come to dread sunny days. Drones are not toys. Drones should not be sold to the public as it they were. It is just plain stupid!
In the most minor of unwanted outcomes is a drone delivery with a package that smashes my perennial garden or lands on a child or pet playing there. I do not want them invading my privacy or my peaceful enjoyment of nature. I don't want them on beaches crowded with people or beautifully empty. I don't want them. Period.
The potential for harm by drones is enormous. Just ask the multitude of people in parts of the world where we fly them as spy mechanisms or military weapons. People in those countries have come to dread sunny days. Drones are not toys. Drones should not be sold to the public as it they were. It is just plain stupid!
9
"...owners ought to be required to take a safety course and get a license before they fly. You shouldn’t be able to go on the web, make three clicks and — with no training whatsoever — buy a product that could threaten public safety. That’s only true for drones. And of course, in some states, handguns."
Gail, you make perfect sense, but do you really expect Congress to ACT, especially to ACT sensibly? You also make a connection between unregulated drones and unregulated guns. Both are threats to our safety, together a cocktail for disaster.
Just wait until drone manufacturers and gun manufacturers put their heads together (they will see $$!). We can look forward to weaponized drones carrying assault weapons, armor piercing bullets and 100 round magazines. There is no doubt conservatives will claim the 2nd Amendment protects Americans' right to own and fly weaponized drones. The NRA will proclaim everyone needs a weaponized drone for their personal safety and home security.
Don't expect Congress to do anything...especially anything sensible. Once drones are weaponized, the NRA will threaten the reelection of any congressman who even thinks about regulating drones or requiring a training course and license...the NRA will see that as a step towards doing the same thing with gun purchases.
Unregulated sales and operation of weaponized drones is simply the logical next step in America's journey towards insanity...a destination where Congress has already arrived.
Gail, you make perfect sense, but do you really expect Congress to ACT, especially to ACT sensibly? You also make a connection between unregulated drones and unregulated guns. Both are threats to our safety, together a cocktail for disaster.
Just wait until drone manufacturers and gun manufacturers put their heads together (they will see $$!). We can look forward to weaponized drones carrying assault weapons, armor piercing bullets and 100 round magazines. There is no doubt conservatives will claim the 2nd Amendment protects Americans' right to own and fly weaponized drones. The NRA will proclaim everyone needs a weaponized drone for their personal safety and home security.
Don't expect Congress to do anything...especially anything sensible. Once drones are weaponized, the NRA will threaten the reelection of any congressman who even thinks about regulating drones or requiring a training course and license...the NRA will see that as a step towards doing the same thing with gun purchases.
Unregulated sales and operation of weaponized drones is simply the logical next step in America's journey towards insanity...a destination where Congress has already arrived.
172
What you propose will happen is so scary and yet so logical in view of our recent history. I would like to remind readers that the current SCt interpretation of the 2nd amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms unconnected to a state or local militia is a relatively recent construct adopted after years of study and maneuvering by a dedicated group of conservative legal scholars and lawyers.
1
Scary thought.
Maybe one day our Congressional representatives and Senators will recognize that licensing and insurance would be a good thing for drone owners and operators.
Regarding guns, perhaps the insurance companies can take their metadata and see if gun ownership makes a homeowner more or less safe and adjust insurance rates based on the presence of firearms in the home. Since Congress prohibits the collection of data regarding gun-associated deaths, we can't ask any federal agency to do such a study.
Maybe one day our Congressional representatives and Senators will recognize that licensing and insurance would be a good thing for drone owners and operators.
Regarding guns, perhaps the insurance companies can take their metadata and see if gun ownership makes a homeowner more or less safe and adjust insurance rates based on the presence of firearms in the home. Since Congress prohibits the collection of data regarding gun-associated deaths, we can't ask any federal agency to do such a study.
PS- I did notice that CNBC deliberately avoided the "Drone" question at last week's presidential debate.
Would one think that it was over the candidate's heads?
Would one think that it was over the candidate's heads?
7
These drone "concerns", (which is all the vast amount of the narrative are). remind me of the primordial fear reaction by animals to things that look like a snake in the grass or when a shadow passes over from over-head.
You should turn to such topics and tone more frequently. Great column. And I'm no regular fan. But great column.
4
"Model airplanes do have a long and relatively problem-free history. This is possibly because they’re kind of difficult to master, and someone who will go to the trouble of learning how to fly one will probably be disciplined enough not to do anything incredibly stupid." She should tell that to the 3,000 who died on 9/11
Poor analogy.
A model airplane and a Boeing 747 filled with people and jet fuel are not the same thing.
A model airplane and a Boeing 747 filled with people and jet fuel are not the same thing.
It's going to get bad, and then it's going to get worse, before it gets better.
3
Why not allow hunters to shoot drones down. We could have a season just like for other game. You would need a special hunting license for them. Just think, a new source of revenue.
A question though; if a drone comes onto your property and you feel threatened so you shoot it down, can you use the Stand your ground defense?
A question though; if a drone comes onto your property and you feel threatened so you shoot it down, can you use the Stand your ground defense?
5
There is no second amendment for drones. Congress, or even some state somewhere as a test case, should require buyers to register their drone at the point of purchase. Not all drones, but the big ones that can bring down an airplane or a power line, should be traceable.
Drone madness is flying amok among hapless inhabitants of the 21st Century.
Is there any defense against the crowded skies ? The intrusion into our private space ? Just when we thought it safe to venture outside our homes, unfettered capitalism strikes again.
No doubt the NRA has a patent in the works for an assault drone packing heat. A homemade drone with firepower already exists (is anybody watching the kids ?). The 2nd Amendment will grant the right to fly armed 'open carry' drones -- if you disagree, a drone squadron is headed your way to protest with live ammo.
We stand in need of a 'Drone Ranger': upholder of justice and protector of the common folk. Armed with silver bullets, the Drone Ranger peacefully disarms all warring drones flown with malicious intent.
The original Lone Ranger had silver bullets as a reminder 'that life is precious and not to be thrown away.' We as a society have moved far, far away from the humanism and non-violence our childhood heroes championed. The Lone Ranger never shot to kill.
Hi-Yo, Silver !
Is there any defense against the crowded skies ? The intrusion into our private space ? Just when we thought it safe to venture outside our homes, unfettered capitalism strikes again.
No doubt the NRA has a patent in the works for an assault drone packing heat. A homemade drone with firepower already exists (is anybody watching the kids ?). The 2nd Amendment will grant the right to fly armed 'open carry' drones -- if you disagree, a drone squadron is headed your way to protest with live ammo.
We stand in need of a 'Drone Ranger': upholder of justice and protector of the common folk. Armed with silver bullets, the Drone Ranger peacefully disarms all warring drones flown with malicious intent.
The original Lone Ranger had silver bullets as a reminder 'that life is precious and not to be thrown away.' We as a society have moved far, far away from the humanism and non-violence our childhood heroes championed. The Lone Ranger never shot to kill.
Hi-Yo, Silver !
5
Is a good guy with a drone the same as a good guy with a gun? Do we need good drone guys to counteract the bad drone guys? Or do we just need guns to shoot the darn things down? I guess we'll have to figure that out after the first major passenger jet is brought down by one accidentally flying into an engine. Or when a terrorist decides to do it on purpose. Maybe Congress should work a little harder, stick around Washington a few extra days this year (I mean they only work about 100 days a year) and deal with this BEFORE a plane is brought down.
4
Drone may seem cute but they can look into your house and take videos without your being able to catch the culprit who may be miles away.
You gotta love that last sentence. Gail rocks!
1
Waiting for Congress to do something useful is like waiting for the Robert E. Lee. It ain't coming.
5
Regulating drones would be an unfair imposition on me. I use mine to deliver my 6 month old to the daycare center, thereby reducing my driving, and saving me time. Please keep your laws off me!
1
It is obvious that we need a constitutional amendment to protect our unfettered access to drones. If we need bothersome licenses and registration of our drones, then when the government decides to monopolize drone ownership they will know where all the drones are to take them away from us. In tomorrow's high-tech society, how can we keep our families safe without the capability to surveil our surroundings from above? In the end, any accidents or injuries caused by drones will really be the responsibility of the remote pilots, not the drones themselves. Ms. Collins, an FAA/ Transportation Department drone registration program is an unAmerican idea.
"But regulations will strangle the economy, freedom, and grandma!" cry the Republican legislators. Good luck getting Paul Ryan and crew to put into place any kind of sensible regulations; they're essentially anarchists opposed to ALL regulation at this point.
As a pilot and flight instructor I agree almost totally. It may be only a matter of time before something awful happens. While I don't agree that line of sight operators should be licensed, I do think that buyers should be required to show ID and sign a statement that they have read the applicable operating parameters and understand them. Online buyers should have to do the same.
If it went viral that Obama was sending drones for your guns, the NRA would declare open season--problem solved.
6
Thank God there's no Constitutional amendment (yet) giving everyone the right to bear drones.
Amen! Thank you Gail.
What are we waiting for------a calamity with a lost aircraft flying 250 passengers?
Congress, take note!
What are we waiting for------a calamity with a lost aircraft flying 250 passengers?
Congress, take note!
4
Fortunately terrorists are not terribly imaginative people. But the day will probably come when drones are subject to draconian regulation if not banned.
Hypothetically your state has 1,000 large bridges, 10,000 miles of remote public roads and on any given day 500 large construction projects (schools, malls, office buildings etc) which need to be regularly inspected. If you ban or limit drones, which are an extremely cost effective way to inspect these features, are you willing to continue to pay the extra taxes needed and risk the safety of our workers? There are dozens of other daily public health and safety issues involved here; thus far no significant loss of life associated with drones. It will happen; we need to carefully consider the benefits of these devices to citizens and businesses, before enacting stupid regulations. Training makes sense, and most drones are already programmed not to go into areas around airports.
3
Thank you for identifying a serious menace to civilization as we know it: squirrels (electrically conductive!). However, in all this talk about the airborne menace of drones ("recreational" and otherwise), you failed to mention the squirrels' terrorist companions: birds! Like the squirrels, they can wreak havoc on the electrical infrastructure (stats please!), but unlike squirrels, birds have a long history of suicide missions bringing down military and civilian aircraft! Regulate drones if you want to, but we will not truly be safe until every bird is registered and completes a flight safety course.
There are already laws on the books in all fifty states that regulate drones. These laws are commonly known as “public nuisance” laws (e.g., California Civil Code 3479) that prohibit ANYTHING that has an adverse affect on the public, including interfering with common areas such as lakes, stadiums, and…yes…the skies. As another commentator noted, we do not need new laws, rather we need to enforce the ones we have. New laws are enacted by governments to make us, the people, think the law makers are actually doing something when in fact all they’re doing is showboating for votes.
The problem is that Congress passes laws and creates vast bureaucracies (i.e., the FAA) that negate state public nuisance laws under the doctrine of federal preemption. The whole idea of the Constitution was to place limits on the Federal Government’s power to tell the states and the people therein how to live and breathe. It is time for everyone to take a collective deep breath and blow out the destructive conflagration that has become Congress. Perhaps we also need a constitutional amendment that declares any dysfunctional Congress to be a public nuisance, thus requiring it to be disbanded until steps are taken to render it functional?
The problem is that Congress passes laws and creates vast bureaucracies (i.e., the FAA) that negate state public nuisance laws under the doctrine of federal preemption. The whole idea of the Constitution was to place limits on the Federal Government’s power to tell the states and the people therein how to live and breathe. It is time for everyone to take a collective deep breath and blow out the destructive conflagration that has become Congress. Perhaps we also need a constitutional amendment that declares any dysfunctional Congress to be a public nuisance, thus requiring it to be disbanded until steps are taken to render it functional?
I can hardly wait for the drone industry equivalent of Wayne LaPierre to begin giving speeches arguing against any sensible regulation of these potentially dangerous machines and striking fear in the hearts of those who will argue that it's all part of a government plot to enslave them. Never forget:
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a drone, is a good guy with a drone!"
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a drone, is a good guy with a drone!"
1
Thank heavens the second amendment doesn't mention drones. We'd be done for.
I see a market for a vision-guided and/or vibration-seeking anti-drone missile available to any homeowner or thrill-seeker. Look for it on Kickstarter, and let the games begin.
Private use of Drones are illegal invasion into public air space...and should be
designated as illegal.
Where is the President on this issue...????
designated as illegal.
Where is the President on this issue...????
1
It is all about mindset and zooming out. If one does not see the grand scheme they will never see ever present the danger. The people who will buy these devices probably fall into two categories. First, those who are up to some nefarious scheme or an attempt at making money without working. Mostly video or picture taking where invasion of privacy is necessary. Think paparazzi or private eyes. And second, the dolt crowd that buys any new gizmo because it allows them to bother the rest of us without getting arrested. Think Gomer Pyle without the manners. Things are complex enough, this can only make safety and privacy harder to come by.
1
Nice zinger -- that last sentence.
1
You liberals are at it again! You want to regulate everything!
The Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Second Amendment, meant to include drones as "arms". And now you want to register drones, and head down the slippery slope to take away my guns!
The Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Second Amendment, meant to include drones as "arms". And now you want to register drones, and head down the slippery slope to take away my guns!
1
"But squirrels don't get in the way of passenger planes."
No, but birds do. Some can even bring down passenger planes if they get in the way of the plane's engines. How can something terrible not happen sooner or later? Wait, it did. And Gail, did you talk about regulating birds? Why not?
1/15/2009: US Air Flight 1549
1/4/2009: Sikorsky Military helicopter
11/10/2008: Ryanair Flight 4102
7/26/2005: Space Shuttle Discovery
Where is your outrage, Gail? Or do you only get incensed by man-made potentially dangerous things?
Nature: Trying to kill humans since forever.
Gail Collins: Trying to repress humans since forever.
No, but birds do. Some can even bring down passenger planes if they get in the way of the plane's engines. How can something terrible not happen sooner or later? Wait, it did. And Gail, did you talk about regulating birds? Why not?
1/15/2009: US Air Flight 1549
1/4/2009: Sikorsky Military helicopter
11/10/2008: Ryanair Flight 4102
7/26/2005: Space Shuttle Discovery
Where is your outrage, Gail? Or do you only get incensed by man-made potentially dangerous things?
Nature: Trying to kill humans since forever.
Gail Collins: Trying to repress humans since forever.
1
Next thing you know they'll be trying to regulate lightning.
Actually a lot of money is spent trying to control birds near airports. To control drones it's probably easier to have regulations. Also birds don't deliberately drop bombs or other objects on people, nor do they suddenly run out of fuel or have other control problems and crash accidentally the way drones do. Birds have their control apparatus right in their own heads, not somewhere out of sight. If they do run into an airplane, say, they suffer an immediate penalty, so they tend to be very careful where they fly.
Actually a lot of money is spent trying to control birds near airports. To control drones it's probably easier to have regulations. Also birds don't deliberately drop bombs or other objects on people, nor do they suddenly run out of fuel or have other control problems and crash accidentally the way drones do. Birds have their control apparatus right in their own heads, not somewhere out of sight. If they do run into an airplane, say, they suffer an immediate penalty, so they tend to be very careful where they fly.
3
Do you really care if birds are spying on you through your open window?
3
I keep my windows closed, but apparently you are desperately worried that a drone might see what you're up to.
I'm more worried about the current administration's use of the telcom system to spy on us, and should the government pass legislation to regulate drone usage, you know that the government will continue to use them - to spy on us. But apparently you don't care about that (although the people who thought the Bush administration were wrong to do it are now staunch defenders of the Obama administration continuing to do it. Why is that?).
I'm more worried about the current administration's use of the telcom system to spy on us, and should the government pass legislation to regulate drone usage, you know that the government will continue to use them - to spy on us. But apparently you don't care about that (although the people who thought the Bush administration were wrong to do it are now staunch defenders of the Obama administration continuing to do it. Why is that?).
1
Boo! Once again, someone (Gail) wants to take our fun away.
The solution is simple, make people liable. That would be too simple. It might lead to people being held liable for other activities. So instead we all just drone on and on...
3
Wow, Gail. Do you read these comments? You really should. Some of them are almost as comical and amusing as your column. However, none of them make as much sense.
Drones don't do harm, people do.
If you want to take my drone away from me, you'll have to rip it from my cold, dead hands.
We don't need more laws; we need less government.
Maybe someday something heavy will drop down out of the sky on some heads and cause some of these people to realize we no longer live alone in caves but in a mutual arrangement called a society, where you can play with your toys as long as you are not hurting the other children.
Drones don't do harm, people do.
If you want to take my drone away from me, you'll have to rip it from my cold, dead hands.
We don't need more laws; we need less government.
Maybe someday something heavy will drop down out of the sky on some heads and cause some of these people to realize we no longer live alone in caves but in a mutual arrangement called a society, where you can play with your toys as long as you are not hurting the other children.
4
Gail another great article. I do however see an opportunity for a new reality show lets call it "Drone Hunters". Guns vs Drones. You heard it here first
: "A well regulated Aero Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and fly Drones, shall not be infringed."
1
In a normal grown-up society these things might not present a threat, but you are so right that the combination of these hyper-tech gadgets marketed by greedy merchandisers, the purchase of them by the under-educated American public, and the non-regulation of them by the do-nothing American legislature is about as scary as anything I can come up with on Halloween.
144
Armed drones. Will the second amendment, to keep and bear arms, come into play? Hope not.
So the government will require that people who fly picture-taking drones to be registered but not people who own weapons?
Conservatives will say like they do about guns, "Get the government out of the business of regulating our fun." Even if it means taking out a civilian aircraft in the not too distant future?
Living in the US, at this point in history, is like watching the great experiment in self governance fail!
1
So maybe we'll get drone regulations before we get any meaningful gun regulations. How many people are killed annually by drones? The forefathers were very shortsighted in scrubbibg the proposed 11th amendment in the bill of rights on the freedom to fly. It's a God given right and keep your government hands off my drone.
If someone was able to attach some sort of automatic weapon on a drone, could they declare it protected under the current SCOTUS interpretation of the Second Amendment and, therefore, free of any government regulation?
Nothing will happen until one of these things brings down a commercial jet with a couple of hundred people on board. Then there will be hand-wringing, mourning, and calls for more regulation...and nothing will get done.
Sound familiar?
Like gun control, the citizens of this country have only their own interests in mind, and cannot be depended upon to act in the best interests of the "village".
You can complain. But it will do no good.
Sound familiar?
Like gun control, the citizens of this country have only their own interests in mind, and cannot be depended upon to act in the best interests of the "village".
You can complain. But it will do no good.
1
The FAA has an exceedingly difficult task. "Drones" come in so many sizes and capabilities as Gail hints at. But where do you draw the line between toys and threats? How big and how capable (GPS navigation, for example) do they have to be to be considered a threat? Plus, one can buy the pieces and parts and build one from scratch. Which part is registerable? Then if you want to really get scared think about adding a widely available autopilot controller with GPS to one of the recreational RC turbine jet models... instant guided cruise missile with 200 + MPH speed and plenty of payload capacity.
But the irony is pretty thick. So far I can't think of any deaths caused by misuse of drones and we are rushning to register them, whilst accidents and misuse of firearms kill tens of thousands every year and we allow the NRA to stifle any attempts to stop the carnage.
But the irony is pretty thick. So far I can't think of any deaths caused by misuse of drones and we are rushning to register them, whilst accidents and misuse of firearms kill tens of thousands every year and we allow the NRA to stifle any attempts to stop the carnage.
85
You missed the California firefighters and the included story about drugs and razors to prison. Plenty of dangers. Firearm dangers are as you say.
1
So far no deaths in my town, but alot of invasion of privacy and attacks on my peace of mind.
1
One of the gasoline engine powered, heavy lift, long duration drones already available would make a nice weapons platform. Camera guided into whatever target the operator chooses. This is a rapidly developing technology that will prove irresistible to terrorists both foreign and domestic. Little Timmy McVeigh could have killed a lot of feds without the "collateral damage" of all those babies.
1
We should worry even more about non-recreational drones. Just as our government has used drones abroad, our many enemies (Russia, China, Iran, etc) will soon be launching (from ships) their's over U.S. soil.
1
Would an armed drone be covered by the 2nd amendment, after all it uses the word arms not specifically guns? A populous with well armed drones is a polite populous.
I would be happy to see you License drones, right after you license guns.
One is a toy happily enjoyed by many people, and while they have the potential, drones are yet to cause a single accident involving an aeroplane or a helicopter. But we want to regulate and license them.
Your analogy about stupidity in these United States doesn't work, it's not strong enough. NFL players are not hired for their brains, they are meat shields or meat axes, instruments ousted for physical trauma.
A better analogy would be the United States congress, a group of people who watched innocent children being slaughtered in a school in CT and gave their tacit approval by not licensing or regulating the murder weapon or even fixing the broken mental health care system that caused this.
In the time that it took you to read this comment; two people have killed themselves using firearms and another has shot and killed someone in their own family. Meanwhile, several thousand drones have been enjoyed safely across the entire planet, killed no one and caused no plane crashes.
Guns first Gail.
One is a toy happily enjoyed by many people, and while they have the potential, drones are yet to cause a single accident involving an aeroplane or a helicopter. But we want to regulate and license them.
Your analogy about stupidity in these United States doesn't work, it's not strong enough. NFL players are not hired for their brains, they are meat shields or meat axes, instruments ousted for physical trauma.
A better analogy would be the United States congress, a group of people who watched innocent children being slaughtered in a school in CT and gave their tacit approval by not licensing or regulating the murder weapon or even fixing the broken mental health care system that caused this.
In the time that it took you to read this comment; two people have killed themselves using firearms and another has shot and killed someone in their own family. Meanwhile, several thousand drones have been enjoyed safely across the entire planet, killed no one and caused no plane crashes.
Guns first Gail.
1
I'm required to use a computer at work. I can't imagine doing my job without one. But every year I'm required to sit in front of my computer for about two hours while I watch a security video on what can go wrong when computers are used improperly or illegally. There were things on that video that I had never thought of, but apparently someone has. In addition to this video that I am required to watch (or they'll lock me out of my work computer until I do), I am constantly having to change passwords, re-train with newer versions of software, platforms, etc etc etc. So, here's my question - would it be so wrong (or inconvenient) to ask people who are going to launch equipment into the sky to have to take some kind of training on the hazards of the equipment they're about to play with, and have them repeat this training once in a while? And, since these drones are going into our airspace, maybe they could train on a simulator? This whole idea of super-sized, potent toys just seems like the next big disaster waiting to happen.
116
The drone phenomenon reminds me of a bit Jonathan Winters did early in his career. The hypothetical was, "What if people could fly?" Jonathan immediately went into his trademark farmer-from-Ohio-speak. Standing out in his field with a neighbor, the farmer lifts his shotgun to the sky and lets loose. "Got 'em!" The farmer thought the flying human was an invader from Mars.
What country can I emigrate to where the govt is not afraid to regulate this private drone nonsense, and I can feel at ease outside my home? Hope it has a mild climate, and is English speaking, but if not, I can put on a heavier coat, and learn a new language, no problem. Where will they take in the huddled masses of Americans, yearning to breathe free, of drones?
5
As if we didn’t have enough to worry about. We shouldn’t blame Gail Collins for coming into our homes on a Saturday morning bearing bad news like an uninvited drone. But she seems to be doing a lot of that sort of thing lately.
That last paragraph spells real trouble. Remember those traveling gun shows where unsavory vendors sell guns to unsavory buyers without any background checks or even accurate records of the sales? They then opened internet markets to make it easier to sell more guns to more anonymous people, as we all know. In fairness, they do require 12-year-olds to check a box saying they are 18-year-olds.
Gail Collins points out that they now sell drones over the internet – no questions asked. It’s only a matter of time before dronesnguns.com will be selling both products in the same transaction with no charges for shipping and handling if you specify delivery by drone.
If our Supreme Court finds that a Second Amendment written in the age of front-loading muskets encompasses sophisticated assault rifles – no militia required – good luck complaining about heavily armed private drones
That last paragraph spells real trouble. Remember those traveling gun shows where unsavory vendors sell guns to unsavory buyers without any background checks or even accurate records of the sales? They then opened internet markets to make it easier to sell more guns to more anonymous people, as we all know. In fairness, they do require 12-year-olds to check a box saying they are 18-year-olds.
Gail Collins points out that they now sell drones over the internet – no questions asked. It’s only a matter of time before dronesnguns.com will be selling both products in the same transaction with no charges for shipping and handling if you specify delivery by drone.
If our Supreme Court finds that a Second Amendment written in the age of front-loading muskets encompasses sophisticated assault rifles – no militia required – good luck complaining about heavily armed private drones
4
Wow! Finally an excuse to get a shotgun! Think of the possibilities! Drones develop defensive maneuvers. Anti-droners develop drone-seeking mini-missiles. Think of the carnage. How wonderful! Boom! Boom! Boom!
Modernity is soooooo cooooooooollll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Modernity is soooooo cooooooooollll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
Always aim for the spinning blades.
6
The drone situation is almost enough to make me wish I owned a firearm. I'd take great pleasure in using it on any drone over my yard or polluting a natural area.
How, exactly, does a drone pollute a natural area? Do you mean the same way wildlife does? We could mandate they all be trained to use a litter-box, I suppose. If you're going to shoot them down, I'd suggest a bow and arrow. Then you could recite "I shot an arrow in the air, where it lands I do not care". That way anyone you injure or kill will be close by, a neighbor or friend perhaps, and not some poos jerk 10 blocks away who might catch your stray bullet.
Thank you, Gail, for bringing up this topic. Besides all the obvious worries, is anybody else concerned that Mexicans flying illegal drugs across the border in drones will make a mockery of Trump's Great Wall?
6
I would bet the people of Pakistan would like to weigh in on the potential of drones being dangerous. How long would it take a smart young terrorist at the University of Pakistan to rig his Amazon bought drone to rain down death to Americans?
4
Gail Collins, you have become my favorite Op-Ed columnist. Thank you for being you. May I talk you into running for Congress or the Presidency? Thought not; you're no fool.
9
Go long on shotgun manufacturers' stock.
1
If someone invented the anti-missile missile, it's just a matter of time til you can go out and purchase an anti-drone drone. If I ever get close enough to one that I feel threatened, I'll try to pull it down and stomp on it like a bug.
1
Wait until the NRA decides armed drones are just another form of gun.
1
You are talking sense, Gail, and it is not funny!
Anyone wanting to buy a drone should first be required to complete a drone operations and safety course before purchase and accept all criminal and civil liability for unsafe operation just as gun purchasers must complete a firearms safety course. Oh yeah, this is America and any training would infringe the rights of citizens in a well-regulated militia.
Maybe the boards of directors of large financial institutions could be made personally responsible for any criminal activities of their corporations including full liability for the public harm committed when they tank the economy.
Maybe the boards of directors of large financial institutions could be made personally responsible for any criminal activities of their corporations including full liability for the public harm committed when they tank the economy.
1
Man will not be separated from his toys. Ask the NRA.
5
The NRA will find a way to argue drones are covered by the 2nd amendment. You know, regulating drones could make people think that regulating guns might be a good idea.
4
Amen! Thank you for calling attention to this: it's a topic I've been thinking about for a while. The nuclear power plant issue would seem to be a pretty serious one...
6
A guy recently shot down a drone hovering over his yard. I can see this going to the Supreme Court where it will be affirmed that the second amendment guarantees a drone's right to bear arms.
4
Every homeowner, car driver or pedestrian can consider an approaching and hovering drone an object endangering such person's safety. The right of self-defense and of "stand one's own" enters the picture, and the person who feels him-, her- or itself threatened would be well justified in bringing the drone down.
Now, how to do it safely and without getting into a hassle with the municipal authorities who are over-bent on denying the citizen the constitutional right to bear arms in public or discharge firearms within the municipality? A good advice was given by a reader's comment in "Neue Zürcher Zeitung": shoot them down with ice cubes fired from a sling.
I close by citing a Talmudic adage, translated from Aramaic: "Hint suffices to the sage"
Now, how to do it safely and without getting into a hassle with the municipal authorities who are over-bent on denying the citizen the constitutional right to bear arms in public or discharge firearms within the municipality? A good advice was given by a reader's comment in "Neue Zürcher Zeitung": shoot them down with ice cubes fired from a sling.
I close by citing a Talmudic adage, translated from Aramaic: "Hint suffices to the sage"
1
I suggest that all those gun nuts out there, whose right to bear arms is so fiercely defended, finally do something that actually makes sense: shooting drones out of the sky wherever they may encounter them. I'm sure the NRA will support such activities and for once they would actually make sense. Usually they're just raving lunatics.
9
Willful destruction of property is a crime. What happens when the high velocity projectile passes through the flimsy plastic drone and carries onward for a mile or more? The potential for killing someone in this manner is extreme considering most drones are flown in densely populated places.
We Americans are to happy to shoot first and think later. Guns take lives when this happens.
No, don't shoot drones, don't shoot anything
We Americans are to happy to shoot first and think later. Guns take lives when this happens.
No, don't shoot drones, don't shoot anything
3
Imagine the fun we'll have when the NRA merges their special brand of weapons-ready personal pilotless aircraft and The 2nd Amendment.
5
We were hiking in the White River National Forest when we encountered a young couple launching a drone to get photos of the Maroon Bells peaks. I put on my best Sister Mary Katharine voice and said, "Drones aren't allowed in the National Forests. They disturb the wildlife!" They mumbled, "Oh, we didn't know that," and packed up the drone. (Full confession: I didn't really know what the Park Service rule was either, although I confirmed it later with a ranger. After 12 years of Catholic school, though, I can instantly channel the authoritative voices of the nuns when need be.)
28
Aaaaaaand, thank you for showing what is the TRUTH of the vast majority of drone pilots. Many drones that are larger than a kitten are flown with radio bands that require a ham radio license to operate. These are NERDS people! The vast majority are harmless, and as conceited as many of you are, they aren't trying to snoop in your homes. How do I know? I'm married to one! He only flies in empty spaces, and if people start coming around, he leaves, because he knows how uncomfortable some are with drones, and is very respectful, as most drone pilots are. The fear mongering needs to stop, there's plenty of other "toys" that are FAR MORE DANGEROUS than the average drone. Take bicycles, for example. I live on a military base that is extremely popular with cyclists from around the world. Many of these people think the road is theirs, and have come close to causing many auto accidents, and no one can deny there's plenty of auto-bike accidents every year, but no one plans on regulating them. Why? Because it's a hobby many are interested in, so no matter how dangerous, the majority wants no regulation. Drones are a niche market, so the majority, mind you many of lower intelligence, are frightened of the unknown and therefore want to rid the world of them. Stop regulating based on fear and instead regulate based on facts!
1
I live in the center of Manhattan, on a street where a toy store, or so it claims, sells drones and demonstrates them to customers above my street. Twice, they have missed me by a hair returning to the store and although I've complained the store owners still fly them in the street. Previous to the drone scare I thought my life was only endangered by the 99% of cyclists who don't stop for lights and ride on sidewalks, weaving their way through pedestrian traffic. I'm sure I'll go by one or the other but at least if the Times publishes my comment, I'll have it on record that I've complained about both--drones and cyclists, but to no avail.
12
It won't be long before someone markets a drone with a built-in rifle. The National Rifle Association can be expected to oppose the registration or regulation of that drone, and then we will never be able to regulate flying nuisances.
19
Absolutely to be expected in this best of all possible worlds (read Camelot).
Isn't there a Constitutional Amendment which allows drones to bear arms? Or is that the one which allows us to arm bears? Them being a "well-regulated militia" and all.
It's inevitable, a serious accident or crime will be followed by serious regulation.
I've been involved with the radio control hobbies for more than half my lifetime. Typically, RC flight required a large amount of investment of time and money to even acquire rudimentary skills. The only path to success was joining a club with expertise and open spaces. The planes flown were relatively small and for the most part, incapable of carrying any significant weight. In some cases, very large planes were used for commercial use, but they are regulated.
Helicopters were/are exponential in both expense and difficulty.
Over the last few years with miniaturization of electronics, flight stabilzation has become both widespread and inexpense. Filght surfaces can adjust for wind and pilot error in planes that cost around $100. It's an amazing time for the hobby, but RC flight still remains difficult.
With the advent of these four rotor helicopters, with stabilzation and GPS, they are nearly foolproof and at the same type, inexpensive and capable or carrying weight.
When something becomes foolproof, it becomes easily accessible, usually to fools.
I've been involved with the radio control hobbies for more than half my lifetime. Typically, RC flight required a large amount of investment of time and money to even acquire rudimentary skills. The only path to success was joining a club with expertise and open spaces. The planes flown were relatively small and for the most part, incapable of carrying any significant weight. In some cases, very large planes were used for commercial use, but they are regulated.
Helicopters were/are exponential in both expense and difficulty.
Over the last few years with miniaturization of electronics, flight stabilzation has become both widespread and inexpense. Filght surfaces can adjust for wind and pilot error in planes that cost around $100. It's an amazing time for the hobby, but RC flight still remains difficult.
With the advent of these four rotor helicopters, with stabilzation and GPS, they are nearly foolproof and at the same type, inexpensive and capable or carrying weight.
When something becomes foolproof, it becomes easily accessible, usually to fools.
32
There is a larger but related issue here, which is that modern technology is bound to produce many innovative "recreational" products that in the hands of ordinary mortals pose threats to public safety. It started with automobiles and guns, but has been accelerating and will continue to do so ad infinitum. What we need is a blanket process of licensing all such products as they appear, so we don't have to wait for proofs of danger or potential disaster before Congress bestirs itself on a case-by-case basis.
16
Note that drones have been revolutionizing warfare. It's also almost likely that the next terrorist act in the US will arrive via drone. To those defending drones, both within the military and not, the question is where the line should be drawn between the freedom to use them (for play or for killing) and the freedom from their harmful potential. As to their military use, how about the question of military personnel waging war from a comfortable seat in a war room in some city in the US, afterward stopping off for a cold one before joining the family for supper? During VietNam one of the disgusting activities we watched was US pilots dropping napalm on peasants, afterward having a cold beer at the officer's club. War by drone is just as disgusting. Terrorism by drone is coming and the perpetrator will afterward be able to swill down a cold one, unless, of course, their religion forbids alcohol.
12
Not to sound pedantic but I think it is important to be able for responsible people to use drones appropriately. As someone who is involved in documentary filmmaking I know how valuable drones can be to create shots that otherwise would require enormous and expensive installations of scaffolding etc. They are also great for real estate brokers capturing views of properties from above. We don't want to hinder responsible uses. I don't see a problem with licensing drones after a mandatory training. They ain't toys.
7
You are right: They ain't toys. However, they are being sold as such. Therein lies the problem.
6
Drones are a disaster waiting to happen. But along with regulating drones, we must also apply more strict regulations to a culprit that's been written about before in the Times: Small airplanes, or General Aviation. These planes are responsible for 90% of all air travel fatalities each year, on average, and also contribute half the lead pollution in our atmosphere. There are several small plane crashes every day in this country, and fatal crashes several times a week. And pilots of small planes are not required to carry liability insurance. Combine these dangerous. low-flying planes with the increase in drones flown by anyone wanting to satisfy their "intellectual curiosity," and you've really got a killer combination. I mean that literally.
18
ugh - "Drones are a disaster waiting to happen."
I'm absolutely sure that those exact words with the substitution of cars for drones were used one hundred years ago. The person uttering those words was right cars were and are disasters waiting to happen. We've licensed them and regulated them to death and they still are disasters. Too bad we can't outlaw stupidity as the human element that screws-up technology.
I'm absolutely sure that those exact words with the substitution of cars for drones were used one hundred years ago. The person uttering those words was right cars were and are disasters waiting to happen. We've licensed them and regulated them to death and they still are disasters. Too bad we can't outlaw stupidity as the human element that screws-up technology.
I graduated High School in 1966, started college and realized I wanted to be a fighter pilot. I told my parents who threatened to have me committed. They won that argument, so I immediately grew my cut-above the ear, hair somewhat long and now I want to by a drone.
I'm sure there are young or old ladies that want one, too. But I would think it's more of a boy thing, like wanting to be a fighter pilot or James Bond. One of my buddies actually has one.
Now, in a saner time of life, I have to admit. You're right! Drones can be dangerous. I can drone on about imagining one fly across the front window of a family filled, SUV scooting down the highway in the fast lane, or some meme voyeur trying to get a picture of a Fireman's face, when he's high up on a ladder. The possibilities for a disaster are limitless.
The winged machines can be relegated to non-metropolitan areas, maybe barren fields only???? Anyhow, here's a chance for our usually non-productive politicians to get something done.
I'm sure there are young or old ladies that want one, too. But I would think it's more of a boy thing, like wanting to be a fighter pilot or James Bond. One of my buddies actually has one.
Now, in a saner time of life, I have to admit. You're right! Drones can be dangerous. I can drone on about imagining one fly across the front window of a family filled, SUV scooting down the highway in the fast lane, or some meme voyeur trying to get a picture of a Fireman's face, when he's high up on a ladder. The possibilities for a disaster are limitless.
The winged machines can be relegated to non-metropolitan areas, maybe barren fields only???? Anyhow, here's a chance for our usually non-productive politicians to get something done.
10
30+K die of bullets every year and guns are unregulated. What makes you think Congress is going to regulate flying machines that haven't killed anyone? The climate is warming and someday homo sapiens may face extinction along with the animals and plants already gone, but again, nothing has happened to convince Congress - if Congress can be convinced - that we need to take corrective action. Regulation is an anathema to the GOP. Your dreading the drones does raise a very serious question - what alarms Republicans enough to take action?
15
Answer: women's reproductive rights.
PS Drones are an unnecessary menace.
PS Drones are an unnecessary menace.
5
Women's health care.
5
Recently, while driving by the large rack of mailboxes for my neighborhood, I saw a leaflet attached. I pulled over to see whose dog was missing this time. Instead, it was for somebody's missing drone, which had gone astray. If found, please return to......
Undoubtedly, drones are primarily being lobbied for by the N.R.A., as well as the makers of rifles with laser sighting. Wouldn't even surprise me if they own most of the stock in companies that make drones. A drone can carry a weapon, as well as a camera, and if I feel threatened..........
Undoubtedly, drones are primarily being lobbied for by the N.R.A., as well as the makers of rifles with laser sighting. Wouldn't even surprise me if they own most of the stock in companies that make drones. A drone can carry a weapon, as well as a camera, and if I feel threatened..........
8
You've got it all wrong, Gail. The real solution is to allow citizens to carry portable surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down the offending drones. That way there's a new market for gun manufacturers to move into, and drone companies can build armored drones armed with defensive weapons to fight back against the SAM owners - yet another way to increase profits. And this is just the beginning...we're talking 1000 pound aerial behemoths doing battle with freedom-loving SAM owners. You can take them away when you pry them out of our dead hands. Off we go, into the wild blue yonder!
39
Too good to be ignored! Too possible to be funny. Too sad to be true.
1
Then there will be drones with built-in stealth capability...
1
“ 'He was trying to fulfill his own intellectual curiosity,' the defense lawyer told The Daily News."
I don't give a hoot about anyone's "intellectual curiosity" when it comes to these space invading drones. I care about safety, my right to privacy and additionally, quality of life. There is already so much air traffic over metropolitan areas, with countless planes and helicopters filling the skies, many at low altitude. Opening this pandora's box to release errant and potentially malicious drones is a recipe for disaster(s). How would necessary regulations be effectively enforced? Think how difficult this will be. Our current do-nothing Congress inspires anything but confidence, making the situation even more frightening.
Fly kites, not drones.
I don't give a hoot about anyone's "intellectual curiosity" when it comes to these space invading drones. I care about safety, my right to privacy and additionally, quality of life. There is already so much air traffic over metropolitan areas, with countless planes and helicopters filling the skies, many at low altitude. Opening this pandora's box to release errant and potentially malicious drones is a recipe for disaster(s). How would necessary regulations be effectively enforced? Think how difficult this will be. Our current do-nothing Congress inspires anything but confidence, making the situation even more frightening.
Fly kites, not drones.
36
Your right. Don't forget to vote for a congress that will do something.
5
Brunella - "Fly kites, not drones."
The neighbor of my friend's father was walking on a beech last summer when an errant kite whipped by a strong wind flew out of the sky and took out his eye. Kite flying needs to be licensed and regulated. Those things can be very dangerous.
The neighbor of my friend's father was walking on a beech last summer when an errant kite whipped by a strong wind flew out of the sky and took out his eye. Kite flying needs to be licensed and regulated. Those things can be very dangerous.
1
If someone has a gun on a drone, is that open carry or concealed carry? Is it legal?
14
It is irresponsible.
4
Was this article written in reverse?! Gun supporters keep droning on...
4
Droners, protect your right to drone on anywhere anytime anyhow: simply rename your drones--let them be known henceforth as rather slow camera-equipped bullets, fired by controller pistols. Congress will be helpless.
14
While calling for regulation of drones, how about the US government's use of them to kill US citizens abroad and the use of them to kill foreign nationals in countries against which Congress has not declared war?
Private use should be regulated but so should governmental use, particularly violent use.
Private use should be regulated but so should governmental use, particularly violent use.
6
Any citizen hiding abroad who promotes and encourages terrorist acts on our country should be eliminated in any way possible. Do you want to volunteer to parachute in and arrest and return him or her for trial?
1
Well I love reading Gail Collins's columns because she is so darn funny. This is not funny. But bravo Gail! Even moreso because this is not a topic du jour.
You have made it clear that this is a problem, and we need to deal with it. Thank you!!!
You have made it clear that this is a problem, and we need to deal with it. Thank you!!!
22
I had honestly no idea there was one more thing to worry about. Or regulate. But thank you, Gail, because I agree these weird drones are crazy and dangerous. Didn't the US send drones into Iraq? Here living in New York City I thought the only dangerous thing above my head was pigeon poop. Or cascading flower pots. Or cats commiting suicide.
16
Don't forget to worry about the cheap laser pointers which will soon bring down an airliner.
1
Gemli is absolutely right about the relationship between artificial intelligence and drones. I have worked in AI since joining IBM fifty years ago and can attest to how close these things are to reality. Self driving cars are on the roads here in Silicon Valley, and self flying airplanes and drones are on the way.
One of the local party games is to guess when the world wide net will become self aware. Incidentally, that event is mentioned in the first Terminator movie, as Gemli knows. Answers that I have heard range from 'already here' to 1,000 years. Most people guess 50 to 100 years.
This goes hand in hand with robots doing work. A manufacturing plant today typically has ten percent as many employees as fifty years ago. That means we will have plenty of stuff for everyone, assuming we build good robots, but there will be few jobs. Then either those who work will have all the money or everyone else will be on welfare. We are trending towards the first option now, which is part of the reason for increasing inequality.
To see the solution, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders (the other candidates are unaware) and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
One of the local party games is to guess when the world wide net will become self aware. Incidentally, that event is mentioned in the first Terminator movie, as Gemli knows. Answers that I have heard range from 'already here' to 1,000 years. Most people guess 50 to 100 years.
This goes hand in hand with robots doing work. A manufacturing plant today typically has ten percent as many employees as fifty years ago. That means we will have plenty of stuff for everyone, assuming we build good robots, but there will be few jobs. Then either those who work will have all the money or everyone else will be on welfare. We are trending towards the first option now, which is part of the reason for increasing inequality.
To see the solution, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders (the other candidates are unaware) and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
2
$
$
We've all seen them in glossy magazine spreads, films, and celebrity profiles: cantilevered houses perched high on a cliff or a rocky hill out west, their residents' privacy ensured by topographic barriers to intruders and papparazzi. They have window shades only in the screening rooms where 30 guests can watch widescreen films from luxury seats.
Now imagine a drone, with an active video camera, hovering outside bedrooms, hot tubs, or the changing room next to the pool.
When it comes down to funding ballot propositions, electoral campaigns, lawsuits, and PR efforts, I wonder who will put more money into the inevitable battle between drone-owners and homeowners?
It's a close call. Those homes are occupied by the wealthiest of people; but drones are owned by far more individuals and families. Individuals and families that collect gold because they don't trust currency. Worse, many drones are operated by people who have been brainwashed (by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and many other Pauls, but NOT Times Book Review Editor Pamela Paul) to believe that they have the "liberty" to do anything that was not outlawed before 1789. Some of those people have been stockpiling automatic weapons and shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled-grenade launchers since Oklahoma elected a Democratic Senator (1978).
Even if such people lose every legislative fight, and every court battle, who is going to serve the summons on them?
$
We've all seen them in glossy magazine spreads, films, and celebrity profiles: cantilevered houses perched high on a cliff or a rocky hill out west, their residents' privacy ensured by topographic barriers to intruders and papparazzi. They have window shades only in the screening rooms where 30 guests can watch widescreen films from luxury seats.
Now imagine a drone, with an active video camera, hovering outside bedrooms, hot tubs, or the changing room next to the pool.
When it comes down to funding ballot propositions, electoral campaigns, lawsuits, and PR efforts, I wonder who will put more money into the inevitable battle between drone-owners and homeowners?
It's a close call. Those homes are occupied by the wealthiest of people; but drones are owned by far more individuals and families. Individuals and families that collect gold because they don't trust currency. Worse, many drones are operated by people who have been brainwashed (by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and many other Pauls, but NOT Times Book Review Editor Pamela Paul) to believe that they have the "liberty" to do anything that was not outlawed before 1789. Some of those people have been stockpiling automatic weapons and shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled-grenade launchers since Oklahoma elected a Democratic Senator (1978).
Even if such people lose every legislative fight, and every court battle, who is going to serve the summons on them?
4
The trouble here seems to be bad behavior that comes with anonymity. Insist that any drones over a certain size (or capable of taking pictures) be registered and fitted with a radio transponder and license tag, and watch the problem mostly go away. Better yet, require the operators to pass a test demonstrating awareness of airspace laws and safety. If it can be required for ham radio operators, it can be required of drone pilots.
14
If a drone flys over my property, it had better be hardened against shotgun pellets.
6
Thank you, Gail. How in the world has this phenomenon developed without requiring some kind of licensing, and strict limits on where they can be used? They invade our privacy, are dangerous, and as others have said, it's only beginning.
8
It's just a matter of time before drone technology leads to affordable passenger-carrying personal drones, a la the Jetsons, with Google, Tesla and Amazon getting in the mix, at which point things will get even more bizarre, and we'll start seeing flying Santas all over during Christmastime delivering...you guessed it, personal junior drones, 2021's must-have gift.
Seriously, though, these things are getting smarter, lighter, cheaper and more powerful, and will be capable of causing all kinds of trouble, deliberately and not, all but impossible a few years ago. Paired with sophisticated software, a GPS and long-lasting batteries, they'll be able to automatically travel anywhere you want that's within range, without active human guidance, and either deliver something, be it a package or bomb, or transmit live video, such as of the effect of said bomb.
There are certainly all sorts of great uses from drones, both fun and serious, but all sorts of dangers as well, and they're going to be tough to regulate and control effectively given how cheap and numerous there are. There are already too many over too broad a region to jam enough of their signals, and some other means will have to be found to control them,
Seriously, though, these things are getting smarter, lighter, cheaper and more powerful, and will be capable of causing all kinds of trouble, deliberately and not, all but impossible a few years ago. Paired with sophisticated software, a GPS and long-lasting batteries, they'll be able to automatically travel anywhere you want that's within range, without active human guidance, and either deliver something, be it a package or bomb, or transmit live video, such as of the effect of said bomb.
There are certainly all sorts of great uses from drones, both fun and serious, but all sorts of dangers as well, and they're going to be tough to regulate and control effectively given how cheap and numerous there are. There are already too many over too broad a region to jam enough of their signals, and some other means will have to be found to control them,
4
Last evening, I watched a video of some newer drones that are either available now or will be shortly. One of them has an electronic mechanism to create an invisible wall, sort of like the ones that keep dogs in a yard, but with different underlying technologies employed. So, with that technology, the problem of runaway drones would largely be resolved. A runaway landed on the White House grounds some months ago (Jan. 26, 2015), (I guess this news did not reach New York and Ms. Collins.)
Okay, is anyone paying attention? If an electronic fence can be created to keep drones in, then similar electronic guards can keep drones out of key locations and installations. The FAA could require that all drones over a certain weight be so equipped. Just as with car safety measures, it could be against the law to disconnect any such programming and, further, the drone could be programmed to send out alerts if the safety device were disabled (these are really sophisticated devices, so we can expect them to do a lot).
None of this would stop someone from flying a drone too high. The obvious solution is to require some sort of license. At the present time, the FAA is approving provisional use of drones for commercial purposes, but the operator has to be an actual, licensed pilot, private or above.
Europe is far ahead of us in commercial applications. These things are very useful for many difference purposes, but for now, technology is ahead of regulation, but it will catch up in time.
Okay, is anyone paying attention? If an electronic fence can be created to keep drones in, then similar electronic guards can keep drones out of key locations and installations. The FAA could require that all drones over a certain weight be so equipped. Just as with car safety measures, it could be against the law to disconnect any such programming and, further, the drone could be programmed to send out alerts if the safety device were disabled (these are really sophisticated devices, so we can expect them to do a lot).
None of this would stop someone from flying a drone too high. The obvious solution is to require some sort of license. At the present time, the FAA is approving provisional use of drones for commercial purposes, but the operator has to be an actual, licensed pilot, private or above.
Europe is far ahead of us in commercial applications. These things are very useful for many difference purposes, but for now, technology is ahead of regulation, but it will catch up in time.
2
As a former military and commercial pilot, flight instructor, and a frequent air passenger, I don't want these things in the same airspace as airplanes, period.
46
I'm concerned that drones will become the weapon of choice of peeping toms and burglars looking to see if a person is home. There does need to be some kind of control over them; maybe something similar to a ham radio license or some other type of registration.
6
Can those members of congress who drone on and on also be regulated?
25
Funny!
That they have not been outlawed in itself is proof that the collective IQ is dropping rapidly. Welcome to the comic book world of todays average intelligence.
15
^
^
A few things need to be said here. First, Happy Halloween to Gail and her staff and the moderators and readers. I can't tell costumes from everyday outfits, but that's just me.
Let's look at this NFL thing: Two different men from 2 different teams in 2 different states on July 4 -- each of whom had the talent, the luck, and the work ethic to be on an NFL roster, with the potential of pensions after 5 seasons and lifelong jobs coaching or running car dealerships -- personally handled fireworks on the same day. Each lost fingers. Their livelihood depended primarily on physical prowess, and they harmed themselves with explosives. I can't even.
Now Gail, this thing about mammals? What's up? Five weeks ago, you compared the right wing to "a band of vicious wombats" (generating pro-wombat Comments, one of which got 740+ Recommends); a week ago, you said Marco Rubio seems to have less energy than a koala (noting correctly that koalas sleep most of the time, which showed up in a crossword clue the next day); and now you remind us that "squirrels can knock out power lines and nobody’s talking about regulating them". Also true. But maybe next month, pick on reptiles? Or Cniderians?
But about the drone thing, Gail's final sentence says it all. And I have little doubt that the gun lobby will hire superlawyer Paul Clement to mastermind a 3-decade legal strategy that classifies drones as "arms". As in, "the right to keep and bear". Time is on his side: He's younger than Tea Leoni.
^
A few things need to be said here. First, Happy Halloween to Gail and her staff and the moderators and readers. I can't tell costumes from everyday outfits, but that's just me.
Let's look at this NFL thing: Two different men from 2 different teams in 2 different states on July 4 -- each of whom had the talent, the luck, and the work ethic to be on an NFL roster, with the potential of pensions after 5 seasons and lifelong jobs coaching or running car dealerships -- personally handled fireworks on the same day. Each lost fingers. Their livelihood depended primarily on physical prowess, and they harmed themselves with explosives. I can't even.
Now Gail, this thing about mammals? What's up? Five weeks ago, you compared the right wing to "a band of vicious wombats" (generating pro-wombat Comments, one of which got 740+ Recommends); a week ago, you said Marco Rubio seems to have less energy than a koala (noting correctly that koalas sleep most of the time, which showed up in a crossword clue the next day); and now you remind us that "squirrels can knock out power lines and nobody’s talking about regulating them". Also true. But maybe next month, pick on reptiles? Or Cniderians?
But about the drone thing, Gail's final sentence says it all. And I have little doubt that the gun lobby will hire superlawyer Paul Clement to mastermind a 3-decade legal strategy that classifies drones as "arms". As in, "the right to keep and bear". Time is on his side: He's younger than Tea Leoni.
4
I suppose the debate over regulation will determine how far free market conservatives are willing to push their hostility to government intervention in the economy. One approach they might advocate is the reliance on lawsuits to discipline irresponsible drone owners. People would enjoy the right to operate their gadgets freely, but they would face accountability in civil court for any damage caused.
This strikes me as a singularly inadequate approach to dealing with a form of technology with great potential for good or harm. But I once heard a conservative economist argue for precisely this method of regulating prescription medicines. Curtail the FDA, he said, and let fear of lawsuits discipline the pharmaceutical industry. After all, if your spouse dies from ingesting defective medications, you could console yourself with a large cash settlement in court.
Medications, and drones, require a more proactive form of regulation, one that values human life and well-being over market purity.
This strikes me as a singularly inadequate approach to dealing with a form of technology with great potential for good or harm. But I once heard a conservative economist argue for precisely this method of regulating prescription medicines. Curtail the FDA, he said, and let fear of lawsuits discipline the pharmaceutical industry. After all, if your spouse dies from ingesting defective medications, you could console yourself with a large cash settlement in court.
Medications, and drones, require a more proactive form of regulation, one that values human life and well-being over market purity.
6
We're currently treating drones as if they're some harmless play thing that doesn't need regulation, like a gun or something. How crazy is that?
22
No civilian needs a drone. They should be banned, period. The first time I see one flying in the airspace over my home I will try to take it down, using a baseball bat if possible.
4
When the junior was young and into remote controlled stuff, he expressed the need to own a remote control aircraft. My husband explained that he would be happy to assist in the purchase of said aircraft _if_ the junior son was also willing to spring for a rider on our home owner's insurance to protect us from a "mishap." Just as well, the cars were enough of a hazard.
But I used to wonder about the sanity of rider for a remote control plane....until remote controlled helicopter fell outta the sky and crash landed on a co-worker's windshield...while she was driving. Thankfully, she only his a tree and no one was hurt.....except the year old car that was totaled. The kid didn't have any insurance for anything, and the her car insurance did want to cover it....and hilarity ensued.
Licensing and insurance for those things. There are going to be accidents and there are going to be damages. Someone has to own responsibility for bringing down an aircraft or taking out a car. There has to be recourse.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
But I used to wonder about the sanity of rider for a remote control plane....until remote controlled helicopter fell outta the sky and crash landed on a co-worker's windshield...while she was driving. Thankfully, she only his a tree and no one was hurt.....except the year old car that was totaled. The kid didn't have any insurance for anything, and the her car insurance did want to cover it....and hilarity ensued.
Licensing and insurance for those things. There are going to be accidents and there are going to be damages. Someone has to own responsibility for bringing down an aircraft or taking out a car. There has to be recourse.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
172
that should read, "insurance did not want to cover it." mea culpa.
1
Recreational drones should be illegal - no ifs, ands, buts. If a single bird can disrupt a jet engine and bring down a plane, we don't need this extra danger. Another case of the inmates taking over the asylum, all for the cause of making money. How about "Go fly a kite!"
10
Drones can either be a useful tool or a thing that could conceivably bring down a jet plane full of passengers.
Strict rules should be devised and implemented now before things get out of hand and control is lost.
Personally, I think they should only be used by those in authority of say search and rescue etc and taken out of the fun category.
It is too late when a fun lover does something stupid and a tragedy occurs.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Strict rules should be devised and implemented now before things get out of hand and control is lost.
Personally, I think they should only be used by those in authority of say search and rescue etc and taken out of the fun category.
It is too late when a fun lover does something stupid and a tragedy occurs.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
178
First of all, there aren’t that many nuclear power plants in America, largely because it’s become a “cause” that a bomb might be dropped on one by a circling recreational drone. (There are 61 nuclear power plants in the U.S.)
And all those near-misses with airliners might be solved by arming them with guided missiles. But I love the idea of furnishing prison inmates with drugs and hacksaw blades via drone. Imagine the possibilities at prisoner-control by dropping one in a prison yard containing what LOOK like drugs and hacksaw blades.
On anything remotely like mature reflection, it would seem clear that drones need to be regulated. Yet, in a society where we permit loaded handguns in bars … maybe not. Does the Second Amendment say anything about not infringing the right of citizens to keep, bear and operate recreational drones?
But it’s true that the “incredibly stupid issue” has relevance, where we find it’s necessary to place a warning label on chainsaws that caution “Do not hold the wrong end of a chainsaw” (yep, it’s real).
I don’t know that drone operators need to get a license, if indeed they’re as easy to operate as claimed. However, what we might do is embed guidance software that allows aviation authorities, in the event of an observed infraction or congestion in the air that’s ignored by the operator to commandeer the drone, turn it around and have it return to the operator on a high-speed interception course – could become self-correcting problems with time.
And all those near-misses with airliners might be solved by arming them with guided missiles. But I love the idea of furnishing prison inmates with drugs and hacksaw blades via drone. Imagine the possibilities at prisoner-control by dropping one in a prison yard containing what LOOK like drugs and hacksaw blades.
On anything remotely like mature reflection, it would seem clear that drones need to be regulated. Yet, in a society where we permit loaded handguns in bars … maybe not. Does the Second Amendment say anything about not infringing the right of citizens to keep, bear and operate recreational drones?
But it’s true that the “incredibly stupid issue” has relevance, where we find it’s necessary to place a warning label on chainsaws that caution “Do not hold the wrong end of a chainsaw” (yep, it’s real).
I don’t know that drone operators need to get a license, if indeed they’re as easy to operate as claimed. However, what we might do is embed guidance software that allows aviation authorities, in the event of an observed infraction or congestion in the air that’s ignored by the operator to commandeer the drone, turn it around and have it return to the operator on a high-speed interception course – could become self-correcting problems with time.
4
"But some drones don’t require much more skill than opening a box. And the incredibly stupid issue is extremely important here. Remember, we live in a land where professional football players lost fingers in two separate incidents involving playing with fireworks last Fourth of July."
Yes, those words again--"Incredibly stupid." Stupid is as stupid does, per Gump. We talk a lot about the graying of America, but too little about the stupidization of our culture--one more focused on selfish entitled behavior (even selfie sticks can do bodily harm) over common sense and public safety.
I get apoplectic on the topic of drones around airports. But my anger level rises even more when I consider drone manufacturers have expanded faster than the regulations to contain stupid acts. Pilots are angry too--they see these things whipping around runways, impeding their view. They should be getting combat pay--it's risky flying these days.
Drones should have easy ways to identify them and link them immediately to donor, like car license plates. Drone users are getting away with murder--well, not so much literally--YET. Close calls have a way of turning into tragedies, when safety laws are so easy to bypass.
But I suspect the regulation of drones will be no different from guns, and the "freedom" crowd will be seeing any infringement on their right to terrorize planes as a fascist act.
Maybe pilots will go on strike first--creating a war between flyers and drone owners.
Yes, those words again--"Incredibly stupid." Stupid is as stupid does, per Gump. We talk a lot about the graying of America, but too little about the stupidization of our culture--one more focused on selfish entitled behavior (even selfie sticks can do bodily harm) over common sense and public safety.
I get apoplectic on the topic of drones around airports. But my anger level rises even more when I consider drone manufacturers have expanded faster than the regulations to contain stupid acts. Pilots are angry too--they see these things whipping around runways, impeding their view. They should be getting combat pay--it's risky flying these days.
Drones should have easy ways to identify them and link them immediately to donor, like car license plates. Drone users are getting away with murder--well, not so much literally--YET. Close calls have a way of turning into tragedies, when safety laws are so easy to bypass.
But I suspect the regulation of drones will be no different from guns, and the "freedom" crowd will be seeing any infringement on their right to terrorize planes as a fascist act.
Maybe pilots will go on strike first--creating a war between flyers and drone owners.
22
While agreeing almost completely the counter arguments coming I can imagine.
Drones don't cause problems people do. Everyone will want to differentiate their drone with accessories, creating jobs as the industry grows. Sort of like the ubiquitous 4 wheel drive shops, adding stacks and large tires to diesel pickups.
Perhaps with operation simplified by modern controls a pulse jet drone with a magneto hydrodynamic generator section with insulated electrodes could be fabricated. As it flew and the charge built up it could emit a nice fat lightning bolt down the middle. The drone equivalent of a large pickup with stacks emitting voluminous black clouds of smoke going down the highway.
I did not dream this up; the idea is already on the internet.
Drones don't cause problems people do. Everyone will want to differentiate their drone with accessories, creating jobs as the industry grows. Sort of like the ubiquitous 4 wheel drive shops, adding stacks and large tires to diesel pickups.
Perhaps with operation simplified by modern controls a pulse jet drone with a magneto hydrodynamic generator section with insulated electrodes could be fabricated. As it flew and the charge built up it could emit a nice fat lightning bolt down the middle. The drone equivalent of a large pickup with stacks emitting voluminous black clouds of smoke going down the highway.
I did not dream this up; the idea is already on the internet.
4
Drones delivering packages will be great right up to the first time one takes out an eye or amputates the hand of a person. Then lawsuits will put an end to that fanciful notion. But these drones have to regulated. Otherwise a lot of Americans will resort to our other unregulated insanity and start shooting down drones wherever they find them, whether for sport or because they feel their privacy being threatened. Which it will be. Can't wait to go camping in some serene location and have one of these show up overhead. There are a lot of potentially great uses for drones. But like laser pointers, guns, fireworks, model glue, drugs, etc, there's a big downside to letting these tools be sold and used with no restrictions.
10
Here's how we get regulation on drones really, really quickly: Send one over Speaker Ryan's backyard some Saturday when he's out playing with his kids, and drones immediately will become a thing of the past.
2
You big-government liberal, you! Let the free market sort it out! Don't treat the Congress like slave labor, expecting more than one bill an year from them. Cut taxes, it will solve the drone safety problem! Respect the Second Amendment and don't stand in the way of citizens carrying anti-aircraft missiles. It is our lack of family values that creates a drone problem - no nation with one-man-one-woman marriages has a drone problem. Go to the Gold standard, stop issuing fiat money, and no one will fly drones dangerously. ...
39
While a squirrel falling on my head might not be pleasant (I once had one use my should as a springboard - long story), it will not kill me and likely would be more freaked out than I. A 50 pound drone could kill even an adult. We certainly ought to be able to make rules about potentially lethal weapons flying over our heads - even if the owner is just having a good time...
Beyond safety, there are also questions about the right to privacy. Often the courts look at whether a person has a 'reasonable right to the expectation of privacy' when such cases come up. Drones open up whole new areas and questions. Does a bridal party in a public space have any right to privacy? Maybe not, if the 'intruder' is simply standing on the periphery of the event, but how about a drone flying directly over couple and officiant? How about a ticket event (graduation) on a college campus (technically maybe usually a public space)? We do need some regulations - anyone who has lived a few decades knows that there are lots of folks out there with more money than sense who will not do the right thing unless someone makes rules and sees to it that there are consequences for not following them.
Beyond safety, there are also questions about the right to privacy. Often the courts look at whether a person has a 'reasonable right to the expectation of privacy' when such cases come up. Drones open up whole new areas and questions. Does a bridal party in a public space have any right to privacy? Maybe not, if the 'intruder' is simply standing on the periphery of the event, but how about a drone flying directly over couple and officiant? How about a ticket event (graduation) on a college campus (technically maybe usually a public space)? We do need some regulations - anyone who has lived a few decades knows that there are lots of folks out there with more money than sense who will not do the right thing unless someone makes rules and sees to it that there are consequences for not following them.
34
You can also go to an auto dealer, buy a 707 horsepower car, and start driving it on your learners permit. Or a 200 horsepower motorcycle. Both capable of speeds over 200 mph.
Yet, in capable hands, both can be operated safely, and are a lot of fun. Maybe we should focus more on licensing operators of potentially harmful devices, rather than the devices themselves.
Yet, in capable hands, both can be operated safely, and are a lot of fun. Maybe we should focus more on licensing operators of potentially harmful devices, rather than the devices themselves.
5
Not without an adult you can't and in order to get that permanent license, you're going to have to go through a fairly extensive training course, pass a test and then get a license. In addition that car is going to be permitted which means it has full identification so you can be prosecuted for your irresponsible actions. Not the same at all.
5
Drones are not actually all that new. In 1967, the era of the moonshot, I could walk down to the store, buy an Estes rocket, and shoot it up to, what, 1,000 feet. Some came with a camera, which would snap one photo when the parachute opened. You sent away the film and got something black and white and blurry back. But it captured my imagination that I could get a photo of my neighborhood from 1,000 feet. Others had a payload capsule, in which you could send up a centipede, and take notes later on the effects of zero-gravity on insects. (It was not a happy situation for an arthropod.) You could even buy the tubes and some balsa wood for fins and design your own—particularly daring, since there was no guarantee the thing would fly. Even though I kept expecting someone to tell me that it was illegal to shoot off rockets from my backyard, no one ever did, because it wasn't. On the other hand, my parents forbade me to own a bb gun, and as a result, I never became a hunter. Unlike my friend next door, who was not allowed to shoot off rockets but went duck hunting with his dad. I give this story as an example of how behavior can be modified or left uninhibited, for better or worse, by laws and parents.
1
Flying toys are a fad. Fads come and go. These toys break easily and are expensive. These Christmas toys will be in the trash in 2-3 months.
Where is the outcry over balloons?
The popularity of these things will literally plummet with liability lawsuits.
The questions need to be about the broader topic of surveillance.
Where is the outcry over balloons?
The popularity of these things will literally plummet with liability lawsuits.
The questions need to be about the broader topic of surveillance.
1
Well, drones are people too and they should be allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves when they are flying over private property taking illicit pictures. Seriously, one of the easiest things to do would be to define what a recreational drone is based weight and flying time capacity. Then regulate the bigger ones.
13
I watched a video with a drone that had a remote controlled gun on it. Look out for the NRA complaining its a 2nd Amendment issue! I don't care if someone takes photos outside of my house. Google already has done that. I don't want drones interfering with planes, whether passenger or firefighting or crashing into crowds. Will we get serious about licensing drones only when some hobbyist brings down a plane full of people?
22
Naw. We don't get serious about a guy who takes out a classroom full of kids why should we worry about a drone that brings down a passenger plane. You know- stuff happens.
7
They're actually not "drones".
They're "quadcopters" (assuming they have 4 rotors).
I have one and I fly it responsibly. It is great fun. Alas, I think many of my fellow drone/quadcopter pilots are not so careful. So Gail's point is well-taken.
I'm not confident that laws requiring drones/quadcopters to be used by a "well regulated" group would be very effective. We all know how well that's working with another "toy".
If we could get a "two-fer" ban on drones and handguns, count me in!
They're "quadcopters" (assuming they have 4 rotors).
I have one and I fly it responsibly. It is great fun. Alas, I think many of my fellow drone/quadcopter pilots are not so careful. So Gail's point is well-taken.
I'm not confident that laws requiring drones/quadcopters to be used by a "well regulated" group would be very effective. We all know how well that's working with another "toy".
If we could get a "two-fer" ban on drones and handguns, count me in!
38
Just because laws are not always followed is no reason to not have them. Despite our DMV and driving laws there are still unlicensed, reckless drivers but they get punished if caught. Murders still occur despite laws. The point is, if it becomes illegal to have an unregistered drone, the thing can be confiscated if the scoff-law is caught. It may reduce irresponsible behavior by hobbyists. Thank you for being responsible, btw.
7
Are you flying them responsibly? It's illegal to fly them within 5 miles of an airport. How far are you from Aeroflex-Andover Airport? There are more than 50 airports in NJ. It may be tough to find spaces in this state where it's legal to fly drones.
4
The solution here is simple:
1. Require an override control to be added to drones.
2. Enable law enforcement to exercise control of drones flown illegally and to shoot down or otherwise ground and destroy drones that do not respond to control.
3. Pass a law to prevent guns from being out onto drones so that the NRA doesn't get involved!
1. Require an override control to be added to drones.
2. Enable law enforcement to exercise control of drones flown illegally and to shoot down or otherwise ground and destroy drones that do not respond to control.
3. Pass a law to prevent guns from being out onto drones so that the NRA doesn't get involved!
16
I did a back of the napkin calculation on the effects of drone regulation on the national economy. My model, the The Lauffer-Drone Curve, shows that further regulation will drastically reduce the enjoyment of the top 2% , dampening their Black Friday purchases, and possibly jeopardizeing our entire GDP growth. I've sent this on to the R candidates. Hopefully they will take this issue up, and force Congress to keep their hands off our drones. Government regulations to strangle small business drone economic growth is clearly yet another Sanders like effort to set us on path Socialdronism.
63
Is this a spoof? If not, get over it. How many people don't buy a car because of the "rules" and "fees?"
1
Yes, Barbara, it's a spoof. You can laugh now, or cry because of the irony of it all. You're right about the cars.
4
Yes, it is a spoof.
1
Gail, as I see it, the airline industry will be forced to build anti-drone collision protective devices that will cost a fortune. The airlines will then raise their prices to pay for them. The public will react by boycotting the airlines and the airlines in turn will put seats closer together so they can increase passenger loads. The resulting passenger angst at overcrowding will lead to more Marshalls and . . . you see where this is going.
Buy Junior a drone and destroy the airline industry.
Buy Junior a drone and destroy the airline industry.
10
Here's something even scarier. If a gun is mounted on a drone, then it may be covered by the second amendment. Who wants an AK-47 "hunting rifle" when you can have one of these. To be used only for hunting and self defense, of course. The NRA is probably already working on it.
43
The NRA wants all drones armed. We may be doomed. Perhaps that is for the best. Maybe the planet will survive after all.
23
When the government tries to get in between a child and his drone, I can foresee something like the NRA, only this time it's the National Drone Association (NDA). In fact, the NDA already exists.
There will be litigation and appeals to a god-given right to have a drone. Licenses and registration? No way.
There will be litigation and appeals to a god-given right to have a drone. Licenses and registration? No way.
14
Why keep track of anything or anyone? Let's get rid of drivers' licenses, car registration, birth certificates, recording of deeds for property and all warranties of cars or appliances, regulations on addictive drugs and all taxes. People can join roving armies of their choice to control their neighborhoods (kinda like an American Taliban). We can all buy guns, bazookas and small nuclear weapons to protect our unrecorded property rights. We can fight with people who crash into us or hire our own rent-a-cops who will hold opposing family members hostage until they pay for the damages. We can stop licensing doctors and nurses and just buy whatever drugs we want from drug dealing doctors or street people. It will be heaven on earth.
16
I'm preparing an amicus brief tying my drone to both my religious beliefs and my 2A rights to insure Thomas, Alito and Scalia will side with me. I might include some reference to my right of peaceful assembly, since I put it together on my kitchen table. After that, I'm going after Bloomberg with my newly formed National Scone Association. I do think, however, that basketball players with excessive hang times be licensed and regulated.
1
Right! The right to own and operate a drone is in the Constitution, and I think, in the Bible.
7
Unregulated, or poorly regulated, "recreational drones" can result in harmful and even catastrophic consequences. Potentially, they constitute a global menace. The larger their number the higher probability they will kill or destroy. The U.S. must take the lead in urgently controlling their design, ownership, deployment and use.
30
They're as easy to get as guns, great country we live in.
31
Oh, how we love our new toys, and think we can micromanage them to only suit our desires. For now, drones are quite the instant gratifier, to be sure -- just ask President Obama -- but wait till the bad guys get a hold of them.
5
I think some bad guys might already have drones.
4
I wish I could do more, but I pledge not to buy anything on Amazon (or elsewhere) should they pursue sending packages via drones. Any gain in speed would not be worth those creepy, intrusive things flying over homes, terrorizing birds, antagonizing pets, hitting trees and bridges, inevitably ending up with lost and mis-delivered items, taking jobs from human drivers...I can wait 3-5 days, or forgo the purchase.
462
Since drones can cause serious injury or death, the pro-weapons community will defend them mightily. Such comments are already showing up here. Predictable--and very sad.
33
I'm worried about the impact of drones on animals. Birds probably hate the things.
All in all they're going to add a great deal of stress to an already stressful (over-stressed!) environment.
People and animals alike need peace, quiet, space and privacy.
All in all they're going to add a great deal of stress to an already stressful (over-stressed!) environment.
People and animals alike need peace, quiet, space and privacy.
36
If the Founding Fathers wouldn't want us to have drones, they'd put it in the Constitution. Drones don't cause mayhem, bad people with drones do. Regulations are a pretext to take away our drones. And once you ban drones, only criminals would have them. The only way to protect us against a bad drone is a good one. And drones can be used to fight against tyranny, so this is a scheme take away a tool against tyranny. I bet is Obama again working to suspend next elections.
88
Recreational drones need to be exterminated like the pestilence they are.
18
Gosh, I wish I had read this before I bought one for my kid's birthday on Amazon about an hour ago.... :>(
2
Thank you, once again, Gail Collins, for an excellent column. Unless Congress does get its act together, we can probably look forward to the day that drones cause as many "accidents" as handguns, or deliberate destructive acts, including terrorism. I feel a new slogan forming: You will have to pry my drone and accompanying control from my cold, dead hands...
17
I can't wait for someone to claim that drones are a "right" according to the second amendment. After all, they can be (and are) used as weapons, or "arms". Sane people (i.e. most of us) might take umbrage with this interpretation, and finally put a stop to such nonsense.
18
There are obviously some bad guys out there playing with drones. The only solution is more good guys with drones.
359
Perfectly logical solution here In the home of the brave.
1
Apparently, Mr. Howard of Crouton on Hudson, there are an increasing number of toddlers with guns. And I have always maintained that only a good toddler with a gun can stop a bad toddler with a gun. So, to make us all safer, we need more (good) toddlers with guns.
Sadly, it seems, the targets of bad toddlers with guns is moms and other children.
But maybe drones, armed with remote-controlled handgun-type weapons will curtail this sad increase in-toddler triggered (sorry) crimes.
Sadly, it seems, the targets of bad toddlers with guns is moms and other children.
But maybe drones, armed with remote-controlled handgun-type weapons will curtail this sad increase in-toddler triggered (sorry) crimes.
Presumably the 'good' guys would have drones armed with guided missiles.
Gee, a drone with a semi automatic weapon on it over a stadium.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
50
Actually, it would be the very definition of "freedom". Of course, only "good guys" would have them. They'd be searching for the "bad guys" with guns.
I totally agree with Gail Collins assessment of the danger posed by drones. It also goes beyond recreational fun and could easily morph into terrorism. Amazon got onto 60 minutes to announce their research into package delivery by drones. I fail to see this is visionary and see it more as a hazard. I was a pilot for many years and found the FAA to be helpful and not some wild eyed bureaucratic organization bent on harassing me. It would be reassuring to have them regulate the use of drones.
48
Gail - Hand-guns are protected by the second, and drones are protected by the ninth which basically says that even though drones were not specifically enumerated in the previous eight, they are therefore covered by the ninth.
Actually it is amazing how much was not enumerated before hand and is therefore covered by the ninth: bedroom slippers are my favourite.
So - live free and fly - baby!
Actually it is amazing how much was not enumerated before hand and is therefore covered by the ninth: bedroom slippers are my favourite.
So - live free and fly - baby!
1
But wait! Isn't this another case of Big Government infringing on your personal freedoms? Don't I have a right to fly a remote aircraft the size of a coffee table?
All jokes aside, something must be done about drones. I don't fancy my trips to the park or wilderness being ruined by some idiot with a glorified selfie stick called a 'drone'. I don't want to be driving along and have one of these things crash through my windshield. Most of all, I don't want them spying on me or causing me bodily harm (duh).
All jokes aside, something must be done about drones. I don't fancy my trips to the park or wilderness being ruined by some idiot with a glorified selfie stick called a 'drone'. I don't want to be driving along and have one of these things crash through my windshield. Most of all, I don't want them spying on me or causing me bodily harm (duh).
387
Apparently you don't have a right to fly your coffee-table sized drone everywhere but since there's no registration required, sure, why not fly it anywhere. No one will know.
5
You might add bringing down my flight say from JFK to LAX.
1
Someone, what is your concern - and safety - compared to profits? Everyone has a right to make unfettered profit.; it's the American way.
2
Golly, Gee Whiz your no fun Gail. There's bunches of Venture Capital at play here, a fledgling entrepreneurial frontier just getting it's propellers and your wanting to get all grownup and responsible. Being sensible actually does make a lot of sense. Okay....I'm with you. Rules/laws need to be made concerning this newest of new technology. Somehow keep it out of the partisan quicksand. Hmmm...
5
Remote controlled aircraft aren't drones by default...its only a drone when it can operate autonomously... otherwise it's am RC octo-copter, or otherwise. Stop giving them legitimacy by calling them "drones"
1
The FAA expects over a million drones to be sold this Christmas, and no doubt many millions more will be sold in the future. These things will be cluttering the skies, buzzing overhead at beaches and parks, snooping into backyards and high rise windows, crashing into each other and falling onto our heads -- and sooner or later, accidentally or deliberately, they will bring down passenger aircraft. I am sure terrorists are already exploring the potential of these obnoxious devices.
I don't see how any system of "registration" or "regulation" is going to make much impact on these problems. We will regret the day we ever allowed them to be manufactured and sold to private owners. They should be illegal, period.
I don't see how any system of "registration" or "regulation" is going to make much impact on these problems. We will regret the day we ever allowed them to be manufactured and sold to private owners. They should be illegal, period.
22
I say keep it completely unregulated. Call it the bleeding heart vs. the righteous winger test case. Let's see how the free market protects us as fun drones increase into the millions. Our last such experiment, with cigarettes, was such a success. The economic boon occasioned by the enormous rise in cancer centers itself justified the free market approach.
14
And what about the drone that flew over the White House? It's high time to regulate these potential WMD's.
6
Forget the peeping Tom drones, these things will fly into airplanes. Don't think the terrorists aren't watching? They are capable of much more mass destruction than the handguns. I'm sure the NRA would feel that everyone should have their own drone to protect themselves.
32
Ms. Collins, to her credit, does not mention the possibility of weaponizing drones. However, we can assume after the first such incident, the response from some will be:
1. Drones don’t kill people. People kill people.
2. More work needs to be done on mental health.
3. If drones are regulated, only criminals will have drones.
4. Knives kill more people than drones. Are you going to regulate knives now?
5. If everybody got a weaponized drone, then responsible citizens could destroy the drones of the bad actors.
6. Thoughts and prayers.
1. Drones don’t kill people. People kill people.
2. More work needs to be done on mental health.
3. If drones are regulated, only criminals will have drones.
4. Knives kill more people than drones. Are you going to regulate knives now?
5. If everybody got a weaponized drone, then responsible citizens could destroy the drones of the bad actors.
6. Thoughts and prayers.
153
I agree, a drone with a gun is a Second Amendment issue. A well armed militia should not leave home without one.
3
I am perfectly willing to get a license for my drone, as soon as I see the threat from guns and vehicles regulated enough to reduce the deaths they cause down to the level of current drone caused fatalities. Now if I could think of some snappy way to add "pry from my cold dead fingers" into this post it might almost become amusing.
We have plenty of real dangers in our country that are not being addressed. Care to guess the ratio of terrorist cause deaths is in comparison to Drunk drivers caused deaths. A rational person might think patrolling the areas around local bars might save more lives, than banning nail clippers on planes.
We have plenty of real dangers in our country that are not being addressed. Care to guess the ratio of terrorist cause deaths is in comparison to Drunk drivers caused deaths. A rational person might think patrolling the areas around local bars might save more lives, than banning nail clippers on planes.
2
You've obviously missed the memo from the CIA about the terrorists' plans to disperse toxic toenail fungus on long international flights to and from the US.
I live in close proximity to military, border patrol and 2 civil aviation facilities, all very active. I'm also within 2 miles of a nationally ranked trap and skeet range and a county rifle and pistol range. As you might conclude, no drone would last long around these parts, pardner. Never the less, the allure of owning one is palpable, it could be wicked good fun.
Our government, in its wisdom, has been using drones for both good and evil, mostly evil, for some time now. We have military people dressed up in full flight gear walking into Conex boxes in the desert to fly them thousands of miles away. The CIA has their own squadron of them, in addition to overseeing the military operations when kill shots are involved. Though technically prohibited from spying on citizens at home, I've no doubt they violate that stricture as blatantly and frequently as they do the rules about phones. With that in mind, I'm including a little ditty I first submitted in February 2013, it seems appropriate to the discourse:
Oh give me a drone
with a satellite phone
and a camera by which it can see
who's taking a loan
or buying a scone
or cutting down protected trees
Clone, clone all the drones
can you tell me who's guarding the fort?
well see who it is doing
what soon they'll be ruing
when it's shown to a jury in court.
I live in close proximity to military, border patrol and 2 civil aviation facilities, all very active. I'm also within 2 miles of a nationally ranked trap and skeet range and a county rifle and pistol range. As you might conclude, no drone would last long around these parts, pardner. Never the less, the allure of owning one is palpable, it could be wicked good fun.
Our government, in its wisdom, has been using drones for both good and evil, mostly evil, for some time now. We have military people dressed up in full flight gear walking into Conex boxes in the desert to fly them thousands of miles away. The CIA has their own squadron of them, in addition to overseeing the military operations when kill shots are involved. Though technically prohibited from spying on citizens at home, I've no doubt they violate that stricture as blatantly and frequently as they do the rules about phones. With that in mind, I'm including a little ditty I first submitted in February 2013, it seems appropriate to the discourse:
Oh give me a drone
with a satellite phone
and a camera by which it can see
who's taking a loan
or buying a scone
or cutting down protected trees
Clone, clone all the drones
can you tell me who's guarding the fort?
well see who it is doing
what soon they'll be ruing
when it's shown to a jury in court.
2
There are many commercial uses particularly for cameras or video mounted on relatively small UAVs. Monitoring invasive plants quickly in fields and cranberry bogs controls the use of pesticides. Fire departments use them to locate fires not near roads. Commercial/civic registration for pilots/drones keeps the serious users accountable as does the auto-homing software feature. Adding a logo to the drone (i.e. fire, farm) can aid citizens who want quality use. For the rest the horse left the barn long ago. Selling 700,000 in 2015!
1
I judge from the (few) comments here that drone owner/operators are just as self-centered and thoughtless as wealthy advocates of tax reduction and gun-collecting advocates of unlimited gun carrying.
109
They may even be the same people!
4
Setting aside safety concerns- which are huge- the last thing the world needs is a bunch of electronic buzzards cluttering the air overhead, licensed or no.
Along the scenic banks of Puget Sound, where I live, we already have to endure the noise from motorized hang-gliders, which sound like Harleys revving up for a race as they chug-chug-chug overhead.
H if Walmart, Amazon (or my neighbors down the road) start flying drones over my house, I'll become one of those old cranks with an air rifle, making the skies safe for birds and butterflies- one drone at a time.
Along the scenic banks of Puget Sound, where I live, we already have to endure the noise from motorized hang-gliders, which sound like Harleys revving up for a race as they chug-chug-chug overhead.
H if Walmart, Amazon (or my neighbors down the road) start flying drones over my house, I'll become one of those old cranks with an air rifle, making the skies safe for birds and butterflies- one drone at a time.
106
This has to be one of your most poorly researched articles. The FAA's reports of drone sightings by pilots have been totally debunked. The "reports" are in fact compilations of supposed sightings without any data or analysis of whether there was any hazard or risk to manned aircraft, or even whether the sighting was a drone at all. Most of the most popular drones are invisible at 300 feet. Pilots have difficulties seeing small manned aircraft - mid-air collisions still occur, two very recently - so it's suspect that pilots are seeing 2 or 3 pound drones.
There is no data that shows that a collision with a small drone is even a risk to manned aircraft - aircraft are manufactured to withstand birdstrikes from birds that weigh two and three times the weight of many of the most popular consumer drones. Leading aviation experts have questioned whether there is, in fact, an appreciable risk. And have also questioned, if the FAA and the aviation industry believe there is a risk, why haven't they tested for it the way they test for bird strikes?
Your sloppy research of this issue makes me question all your other opinions. Are they all as sloppily researched as this?
There is no data that shows that a collision with a small drone is even a risk to manned aircraft - aircraft are manufactured to withstand birdstrikes from birds that weigh two and three times the weight of many of the most popular consumer drones. Leading aviation experts have questioned whether there is, in fact, an appreciable risk. And have also questioned, if the FAA and the aviation industry believe there is a risk, why haven't they tested for it the way they test for bird strikes?
Your sloppy research of this issue makes me question all your other opinions. Are they all as sloppily researched as this?
4
Your use of English (language, actually) is faulty. "Data" are plural.
There have been plenty of reports of drone incursion into airspace. What, do we need to have a mass fatality to drive the point home?
There have been plenty of reports of drone incursion into airspace. What, do we need to have a mass fatality to drive the point home?
1
Where can we find the information that you cite in your comment?
1
Get out much? Gail is a humorist whose latest column takes a serious tack.
Don't attribute your advocacy with technical knowledge. You really don't understand the risks to aircraft engines or helicopter rotors from impact with even a small, dense object.
Ask yourself, on your next flight do you want to see a Phantom quad-copter hovering over the runway ahead of you during the takeoff roll?
While bird strikes are inevitable in aviation, most birds are intelligent enough to avoid danger. The same can't be said for any amateur RC operator who flies into the restricted area around airports or above authorized altitudes.
Don't attribute your advocacy with technical knowledge. You really don't understand the risks to aircraft engines or helicopter rotors from impact with even a small, dense object.
Ask yourself, on your next flight do you want to see a Phantom quad-copter hovering over the runway ahead of you during the takeoff roll?
While bird strikes are inevitable in aviation, most birds are intelligent enough to avoid danger. The same can't be said for any amateur RC operator who flies into the restricted area around airports or above authorized altitudes.
1
Ahhh. Almost makes me nostalgic for the day when our next door neighbor could only look over the fence while we teenaged girls in our swimming suits were working on summer tans.
22
I own and regularly (safely!) fly a smallish quadcopter (aka "drone"), and think it's important to make a few points here:
1. While it is - of course - possible for accidents to happen, the vast majority of the most common models have a so-called "Return to Home" feature, via which the machine will fly safely back to the takeoff point if it loses a connection to the controller. If the battery level gets low, it's often tough to override this feature.
2. The main mistake that leads to a "drone" flying out of control is not setting it up properly (calibrating before flight) which many newbies do when they get it home. The models which are capable of any meaningful amount of damage, however, typically cost north of $1k, and the vast majority of pilots learn their lesson during a low level test flight.
3. We're willing to accept a certain amount of risk in order to enjoy the benefits of any new technology (see airplanes, smartphones, driverless cars, etc.), and "drones" are no different. If I had to choose between 10,000 teenagers getting a new car for their 18th birthday or getting a smallish drone, I'd wager that the 10,000 cars would do a far greater amount of damage.
And finally,
4. They will, inevitably, be accidents, but we already have enough laws in place to stay safe. The issue is one of education and common sense.
1. While it is - of course - possible for accidents to happen, the vast majority of the most common models have a so-called "Return to Home" feature, via which the machine will fly safely back to the takeoff point if it loses a connection to the controller. If the battery level gets low, it's often tough to override this feature.
2. The main mistake that leads to a "drone" flying out of control is not setting it up properly (calibrating before flight) which many newbies do when they get it home. The models which are capable of any meaningful amount of damage, however, typically cost north of $1k, and the vast majority of pilots learn their lesson during a low level test flight.
3. We're willing to accept a certain amount of risk in order to enjoy the benefits of any new technology (see airplanes, smartphones, driverless cars, etc.), and "drones" are no different. If I had to choose between 10,000 teenagers getting a new car for their 18th birthday or getting a smallish drone, I'd wager that the 10,000 cars would do a far greater amount of damage.
And finally,
4. They will, inevitably, be accidents, but we already have enough laws in place to stay safe. The issue is one of education and common sense.
5
Henry Koch, there is a difference between risk and unnecessary risk. What is your problem with registration and regulation?
70
.
"3. We're willing to accept a certain amount of risk in order to enjoy the benefits of any new technology (see airplanes, smartphones, driverless cars, etc.), ... ."
We certainly are willing to do that. One huge reason is that clear benefits accrue to our society from airplanes, smartphones, driverless cars, rail transport of volatile chemicals, computer storage of sensitive data, and similar innovations. Some people have even calculated the risks and benefits in dollar terms, and have compared them as one way of determining whether regulation should be instituted.
Drones that are hobby projects do not similarly benefit society when they are flown outdoors, but they pose risks when they are outside. They can easily be flown indoors in unused arenas, domed stadiums, or specially-built facilities.
Our society gains no more from your drone use -- whether you are a "newbie" or a veteran -- than it does from your riding of roller coasters. In both cases, citizens are having fun assisted by technology. But neither one is comparable to commercial airflight, scheduled ferry service, or express trains.
During the Vietnam conflict, about 57,000 Americans were mortally wounded by war-related occurrences. During each calendar year from 1966 to 1971, over 50,000 people were killed on America's roads each year. That figure is now down, although our population is way up. But use of the public roadway serves society, even if it can be deadly. Flying drones? I see no benefit.
"3. We're willing to accept a certain amount of risk in order to enjoy the benefits of any new technology (see airplanes, smartphones, driverless cars, etc.), ... ."
We certainly are willing to do that. One huge reason is that clear benefits accrue to our society from airplanes, smartphones, driverless cars, rail transport of volatile chemicals, computer storage of sensitive data, and similar innovations. Some people have even calculated the risks and benefits in dollar terms, and have compared them as one way of determining whether regulation should be instituted.
Drones that are hobby projects do not similarly benefit society when they are flown outdoors, but they pose risks when they are outside. They can easily be flown indoors in unused arenas, domed stadiums, or specially-built facilities.
Our society gains no more from your drone use -- whether you are a "newbie" or a veteran -- than it does from your riding of roller coasters. In both cases, citizens are having fun assisted by technology. But neither one is comparable to commercial airflight, scheduled ferry service, or express trains.
During the Vietnam conflict, about 57,000 Americans were mortally wounded by war-related occurrences. During each calendar year from 1966 to 1971, over 50,000 people were killed on America's roads each year. That figure is now down, although our population is way up. But use of the public roadway serves society, even if it can be deadly. Flying drones? I see no benefit.
54
So, maybe you are the creep that flies drones by my window.
I live near the waterfront and see all sorts of drones flying from adjacent rooftops, over the river, over the bridge, through the neighborhood, and yes, by my window.
I am sure it's swell fun for you, but I really don't like it when they hover just outside my living room. And, with all due respect, don't tell me if I don't want a peeping tom with a drone looking at me, the responsibility is on me to live behind lead shutters.
I live near the waterfront and see all sorts of drones flying from adjacent rooftops, over the river, over the bridge, through the neighborhood, and yes, by my window.
I am sure it's swell fun for you, but I really don't like it when they hover just outside my living room. And, with all due respect, don't tell me if I don't want a peeping tom with a drone looking at me, the responsibility is on me to live behind lead shutters.
47
I read through this column twice, just to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I could not find a single incident of the catastrophes that Ms. Collins is so panicked are about to occur. Nothing concerns a liberal more than the idea are involved in something fun and exciting that the government isn't regulating. We have laws against flying near airports, against spying on people, against damaging public infrastructure, against flying over sporting events, against smuggling contraband to prisoners, and so on and so on, but that is not enough for liberals. If people disobey laws, then the solution for a liberal is to make more laws, and if people break those laws, make even more laws and regulations, ad infinitum.
3
So, I am gathering you fly drones because you do not find sexual relations "fun and exciting"? After all, nothing concerns a conservative more than the idea of two consenting adults involved in something fun and exciting that the government isn't using religious doctrine to regulate. If couples disobey right wing religious dogma, then the solution for a conservative is to put ideologues that routinely violate the Constitution and their oath on the Supreme Court to stifle personal freedom, liberty, and sexual choice. I've only watched a drone fly once and I was pretty unimpressed. For me, sexual liberty without conservative religious zealots using the government to regulate sexual expression and freedom is a much more pressing concern. I'll take the liberals regulating drones over conservatives regulating sex any day.
190
Charles, just speaking generally, it is not necessary to be blind. If you did read the column, you still missed the stated fact, with mention of at least one actual, real incident, that drones are flying illegally near airports, appearing to illegally spy on people, illegally flying over sporting events, and so on.
143
Charles, Gail reported that there have been several instances where fire-fighting helicopters and planes had to detour because of drones entering their airspace. There have also been reports of airplanes having to make sudden moves because of drones coming too close to the plane's airspace. I have read and seen many similar reports in the media, reports which included the date and the area where the drone intrusion occurred. Gail also reported about a drone crashing into the stands at the U.S. Open and the drone that took down a power line. I guess you missed them.
You're right, we haven't had a major catastrophe yet (though taking down a power line or crashing into stadium stands comes close). Do we need to have an actual major catastrophe before we can regulate - a catastrophe that would almost certainly cost lives?
You're right, we haven't had a major catastrophe yet (though taking down a power line or crashing into stadium stands comes close). Do we need to have an actual major catastrophe before we can regulate - a catastrophe that would almost certainly cost lives?
66
Liability insurance should be required -- enough to cover eye and face damage from blades at a minimum. Operators would have to convince insurance companies they are safe bets.
And the drones should have to be in continuous two-way communication with a base station or smart phone, each transmitter announcing a unique identifier; the drone programmed in such a way that should line of sight be lost or the distance between the two radios becomes too great, the drone would automatically reverse its path and fly back to its launch site. Between those enhancements to drone controls and an online database of identifiers, safe and legal drone use could be enforced,
And the drones should have to be in continuous two-way communication with a base station or smart phone, each transmitter announcing a unique identifier; the drone programmed in such a way that should line of sight be lost or the distance between the two radios becomes too great, the drone would automatically reverse its path and fly back to its launch site. Between those enhancements to drone controls and an online database of identifiers, safe and legal drone use could be enforced,
49
.
@ Steve S.,
You set forth laudable guidelines and conclude that "safe and legal drone use could be enforced".
Enforced? How?
Do you anticipate after-the-fact criminal trial, and punishment, for a drone operator who keeps the drone in line of sight, and sends out all the right pings, but uses the drone to advance a criminal enterprise? What about the drone-owner who disables the programming, and lets the drone fly out of the line of sight? Same thing -- post hoc trial followed by imposition of penalties?
I think that's the same way we "enforce" our laws against sexual assault. Has sexual assault ceased to be a problem in our nation?
How about not having the drones flying around, in-sight, out-of-sight, or out-of-mind? A drone is to the old model airplane as a cannonball is to buckshot. Just because citizens are allowed to hunt grouse with shotguns doesn't mean they can, or should, have cannons, cannonballs, fuses, and associated chemicals.
We enforce our interest in a cannon-free land by maintaining and abiding by the expectation that no one will buy cannons or cannon accessories.
So it should be with remote-controlled flying things. If it's small, weighs no more than a newborn baby, and can fly only a few hundred feet, no one should think twice. If it's big, well-equipped, weighs as much as a newborn hippo, and can fly vast distances, we should expect to see it only in a museum or a lab. It belongs in the sky just as much as Uzis belong on subway trains.
@ Steve S.,
You set forth laudable guidelines and conclude that "safe and legal drone use could be enforced".
Enforced? How?
Do you anticipate after-the-fact criminal trial, and punishment, for a drone operator who keeps the drone in line of sight, and sends out all the right pings, but uses the drone to advance a criminal enterprise? What about the drone-owner who disables the programming, and lets the drone fly out of the line of sight? Same thing -- post hoc trial followed by imposition of penalties?
I think that's the same way we "enforce" our laws against sexual assault. Has sexual assault ceased to be a problem in our nation?
How about not having the drones flying around, in-sight, out-of-sight, or out-of-mind? A drone is to the old model airplane as a cannonball is to buckshot. Just because citizens are allowed to hunt grouse with shotguns doesn't mean they can, or should, have cannons, cannonballs, fuses, and associated chemicals.
We enforce our interest in a cannon-free land by maintaining and abiding by the expectation that no one will buy cannons or cannon accessories.
So it should be with remote-controlled flying things. If it's small, weighs no more than a newborn baby, and can fly only a few hundred feet, no one should think twice. If it's big, well-equipped, weighs as much as a newborn hippo, and can fly vast distances, we should expect to see it only in a museum or a lab. It belongs in the sky just as much as Uzis belong on subway trains.
51
fortunately there are no flying cars as was predicted years ago. the sky is not as empty as was thought.
8
Bravo, Gail. You are entirely correct on this. The problem will continue to increase as the number of drones increase, and it's only a matter of time until a drone damages or brings down an aircraft. The industry cries out for safety regulations. An attorney who works with drones characterizes it as "the Wild West." Not good at all for public safety.
175
.
Gail deserves a hearty Brava for her column.
"Bravo" has a slightly different connotation.
Gail deserves a hearty Brava for her column.
"Bravo" has a slightly different connotation.
1
Congress refuses to regulate anything, anymore, at the nation's peril. When asked at the debates what they'd do if elected president, "deregulate" is the first or second word out of the mouths of the Republican candidates.
I wouldn't object to drones following our Congress members, recording what they do every day to make their $174,000 (low end of the scale) salaries. Marco Rubio, beware!
I wouldn't object to drones following our Congress members, recording what they do every day to make their $174,000 (low end of the scale) salaries. Marco Rubio, beware!
406
.
Speaking of "Senator" Rubio, he is awfully concerned about unnecessary government spending!
So why doesn't he repay the national treasury for the salary, staff, and benefits that he has failed to earn? Surely he is not conducting senatorial business as he makes the rounds of fundraisers, interviews, debates, fundraisers, speaking engagements, and fundraisers. The Government needs the money, and he is philosophically opposed to that money going to someone who doesn't deserve it.
I imagine he would feel the same about a recipient of Medicaid who did not abide by each and every rule governing that program's beneficiaries. If they want the medical care paid for, they should be at the doctor's office on time, every time, and follow the doctor's orders. It's really quite simple.
Or do I mean "simple-minded"?
Speaking of "Senator" Rubio, he is awfully concerned about unnecessary government spending!
So why doesn't he repay the national treasury for the salary, staff, and benefits that he has failed to earn? Surely he is not conducting senatorial business as he makes the rounds of fundraisers, interviews, debates, fundraisers, speaking engagements, and fundraisers. The Government needs the money, and he is philosophically opposed to that money going to someone who doesn't deserve it.
I imagine he would feel the same about a recipient of Medicaid who did not abide by each and every rule governing that program's beneficiaries. If they want the medical care paid for, they should be at the doctor's office on time, every time, and follow the doctor's orders. It's really quite simple.
Or do I mean "simple-minded"?
80
And who their million dollar bribes come from.
9
Wow! Your comment made me aware that Rubio and Cruz (as well as the rest of Congress) gets $476.71 each and every day- seven days a week- paid by us to do whatever they do every day. And to think many of them want to cut food stamps for the needy.
Oh, I'm sorry, the topic is drones. I want one for fun and photos but I want to be safe with it.
Oh, I'm sorry, the topic is drones. I want one for fun and photos but I want to be safe with it.
8
Since anyone apparently can buy these how long will it be before someone does some REAL damage? Of course, regulating the sale of these potentially dangerous flying things (weapons) means creating another regulation. And we know how much a certain party dislikes regulations, don't we?
137
They've already done REAL damage if they are interfering with fighting forest fires, which apparently they are.
7
Notice you do not see untethered model jet planes. They are classified as guided missiles. These untethered drones need to be classified in the same manner.
At the moment there are many hundreds of thousands of them already in the hands of people who do not seem to have the sense to fly them responsibly.
All new ones from this time on should have to be registered, at least the ones that are capable of doing damage of some sort. The law regulating them needs to be made strict enough to deter all but the most willful violators. Just like guns, there will always be those who either think they can get away with violating the law, or that it does not apply to them, or have figured out some scheme to use them for some criminal purpose.
I am sure someone will say the Constitution allows them to keep and own drones.
At the moment there are many hundreds of thousands of them already in the hands of people who do not seem to have the sense to fly them responsibly.
All new ones from this time on should have to be registered, at least the ones that are capable of doing damage of some sort. The law regulating them needs to be made strict enough to deter all but the most willful violators. Just like guns, there will always be those who either think they can get away with violating the law, or that it does not apply to them, or have figured out some scheme to use them for some criminal purpose.
I am sure someone will say the Constitution allows them to keep and own drones.
212
"At the moment there are many hundreds of thousands of them already in the hands of people who do not seem to have the sense to fly them responsibly."
I'm convinced some flavor of this should replace our national motto.
No longer land of the free and home of the brave, we will be land of the irresponsible and home of the people without any sense.
I'm convinced some flavor of this should replace our national motto.
No longer land of the free and home of the brave, we will be land of the irresponsible and home of the people without any sense.
46
.
@ David Underwood:
Classified and/or regulated? Absolutely essential.
Classified, by who, though? Registration requirement instituted ... by what authority?
There are states where voters vote out judges on the highest courts merely for applying Supreme Court rulings such as Roe v. Wade. There are state legislative campaigns that an energetic upstart can win with just a few thousand dollars in backing. Congress is a lost cause for a generation or more; and the Federal executive branch cannot rule by fiat.
The only body that could conceivably exercise the power to institute the needed controls over drones would be the voting populace. But restrictive voter-registration and polling-place laws (immune from attack after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act) have limited voter participation.
Most of the small percentage of people who are now allowed to vote in this country oppose regulation of any kind (except for regulation of pregnancy, inclusion of religious words on currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, and laws keeping poor people from voting).
Who will mobilize the support for regulation of drones? And how will such regulation become enshrined in law?
@ David Underwood:
Classified and/or regulated? Absolutely essential.
Classified, by who, though? Registration requirement instituted ... by what authority?
There are states where voters vote out judges on the highest courts merely for applying Supreme Court rulings such as Roe v. Wade. There are state legislative campaigns that an energetic upstart can win with just a few thousand dollars in backing. Congress is a lost cause for a generation or more; and the Federal executive branch cannot rule by fiat.
The only body that could conceivably exercise the power to institute the needed controls over drones would be the voting populace. But restrictive voter-registration and polling-place laws (immune from attack after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act) have limited voter participation.
Most of the small percentage of people who are now allowed to vote in this country oppose regulation of any kind (except for regulation of pregnancy, inclusion of religious words on currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, and laws keeping poor people from voting).
Who will mobilize the support for regulation of drones? And how will such regulation become enshrined in law?
9
I have seen untethered jet model aircraft flying and you can too if you'd like to look it up on youtube. It is rather strange and rather wonderful to see them imitating full size jet aircraft.
I would agree with those who say that drones are a potential menace and there will be far too many of them in the air from Dec. 25th and subsequent days being flown by people with no training and experience. However, they are also very useful, a documentary and film makers dream. They are currently being used illegally all over the country for commercial purposes (when you see an obvious airborne shot of a house for sale, almost all of the time this was obtained without legal authorization). The FAA is imposing heavy fines on those it determines are using drones commercially without being authorized. Regulation is moving forward. One company was recently fined almost two million dollars.
Keep in mind, one of the handiest developments for criminals, and cheating spouses for that matter, has been the cell phone and texting, but we tolerate it because of the enormous other benefits. In time, I hope drones will meet a similar results, but we strong safety measures applied.
I would agree with those who say that drones are a potential menace and there will be far too many of them in the air from Dec. 25th and subsequent days being flown by people with no training and experience. However, they are also very useful, a documentary and film makers dream. They are currently being used illegally all over the country for commercial purposes (when you see an obvious airborne shot of a house for sale, almost all of the time this was obtained without legal authorization). The FAA is imposing heavy fines on those it determines are using drones commercially without being authorized. Regulation is moving forward. One company was recently fined almost two million dollars.
Keep in mind, one of the handiest developments for criminals, and cheating spouses for that matter, has been the cell phone and texting, but we tolerate it because of the enormous other benefits. In time, I hope drones will meet a similar results, but we strong safety measures applied.
2
Drones are a lot more capable of causing trouble today than they were a few years ago, when they were classed with model airplanes.
They will quickly become far more capable of causing trouble. Progress is rapid in this field.
What made sense a couple of years ago no longer makes sense, and will become insane in a few more years.
These things are now airplanes, not balsa models but real airplanes. They go places and deliver cargo and do meaningful tasks. They must live safely with everything else out there that is real and doing things in the same space.
They will quickly become far more capable of causing trouble. Progress is rapid in this field.
What made sense a couple of years ago no longer makes sense, and will become insane in a few more years.
These things are now airplanes, not balsa models but real airplanes. They go places and deliver cargo and do meaningful tasks. They must live safely with everything else out there that is real and doing things in the same space.
284
Let's consider "No drones in private hands" as our best defense.
6
And let's not forget the young experimenter who made his drone even more interesting by mounting a gun on it that could be fired by remote control. Amazon might use this idea--deliver a package to your door, and demand payment, or else.
Drones are doing to airspace what the Internet did to cyberspace. They allow all of us to get in each others' faces, not merely with harmless snarky comments in the Times, but with dangerous buzzing machines with whirling blades, like an airborne Veg-O-Matic.
The idea of people being able to fly their mental illness into your personal airspace is a bit scary. There's got to be a way to curb the malicious use of something that is like a giant gnat with teeth. But the genie is clearly out of the bottle, and the time for properly regulating them is long past.
Drones may figure into our future in ways we can't yet imagine. Combine them with the rapid breakthroughs that are being made in artificial intelligence, and we've really got something to look forward to. Picture a world in which the skies are thick with sentient drones, each combining their brainpower to form a collective intelligence. There may be a point at which SkyNet (to pick a likely name) becomes self-aware, and decides to clean a little house.
Drones are doing to airspace what the Internet did to cyberspace. They allow all of us to get in each others' faces, not merely with harmless snarky comments in the Times, but with dangerous buzzing machines with whirling blades, like an airborne Veg-O-Matic.
The idea of people being able to fly their mental illness into your personal airspace is a bit scary. There's got to be a way to curb the malicious use of something that is like a giant gnat with teeth. But the genie is clearly out of the bottle, and the time for properly regulating them is long past.
Drones may figure into our future in ways we can't yet imagine. Combine them with the rapid breakthroughs that are being made in artificial intelligence, and we've really got something to look forward to. Picture a world in which the skies are thick with sentient drones, each combining their brainpower to form a collective intelligence. There may be a point at which SkyNet (to pick a likely name) becomes self-aware, and decides to clean a little house.
429
To your last sentence... perhaps the time has come where this is a good thing (being facetious here, of course). We are suffering from so much collective stupidity and lack of common sense, on many fronts, and it's often aggressively labeled as unassailable freedom of one sort or another. A little housecleaning might help, if the sentient drones managed to grasp this collective problem.
10
I'm a bit surprised that Gail Collins, who normally has a sharp satiric pen, should fall so flat and fearful on this subject. While I agree that certain classes of drones should be registered, I find the fear generated by these devices blown out or proportion to the actual danger. Birds take down airplanes regularly. Leaf blowers are more prevalent, louder and I'm sure have caused more injuries than any drones. News helicopters regularly crash. People spy with long camera lenses, iPhones and nanny cameras.
What people are missing is the modern drone has many beneficial uses while replacing the use of both dangerous and environmental damaging manned aircraft.
The sports stadium is a perfect example of how fear, overrides common sense. Would you feel more comfortable in a stadium with a 1 ton helicopter above it, filled with petrol, manned by someone you have no idea in what state of mind they are in, or a 3 pound battery powered drone? Both can do the same job of aerial photography/videography, but one is vastly cheaper, much more environmentally friendly, and much much safer.
Yes, like cars, register them, educate people, require a "drivers" license even, but keep the danger part in perspective and consider the environmental, safety (as in less manned aircraft in your airspace), and economical benefits such devices can bring.
What people are missing is the modern drone has many beneficial uses while replacing the use of both dangerous and environmental damaging manned aircraft.
The sports stadium is a perfect example of how fear, overrides common sense. Would you feel more comfortable in a stadium with a 1 ton helicopter above it, filled with petrol, manned by someone you have no idea in what state of mind they are in, or a 3 pound battery powered drone? Both can do the same job of aerial photography/videography, but one is vastly cheaper, much more environmentally friendly, and much much safer.
Yes, like cars, register them, educate people, require a "drivers" license even, but keep the danger part in perspective and consider the environmental, safety (as in less manned aircraft in your airspace), and economical benefits such devices can bring.
4
I can hear the cry now. "You'll have to rip that gun from my cold, dead drone."
11